Spring 2019 Reports

Created by Graham Drake, last modified on Mar 14, 2022

Hannah Ali, Jarred Bloom, Jordyn Costello, Madyson Gillanders, Hannah Nicchi, John SerbalikEnglish 361-015/7/19Professor DrakeA-F Group Report Our words were A-F. We began our Dictionary project by splitting our words into seven sections with 52 words each. We first discussed our sections as a group, determining what words we were each familiar with and what we considered to be Geneseo-specific. This allowed us to predict what words would most likely fall into the category of “obsolete.” During our second meeting, we collectively brainstormed a list of 22 potential A-F words to add to the dictionary.After we divided our words up, we began to strategize. There were multiple ways in which our given words were studied. Perhaps one of the most efficient methods for determining the popularity of a given word was through the use of online surveys. The ability of students to engage in statistical reporting was made possible by technologies such as Google Forms and spreadsheets.For example, we each made spreadsheets with our individual list of words and shared the spreadsheets with one another in a group google folder so that everyone had access to all of the data and progress of the group. Next to each word was a drop menu with three options. The options next to each word differed, to some extent, for each of us in wording, but not in meaning. For example, one of us had “no idea,” “familiar,” and “can define word” as the options, while another had “don’t know it,” “heard of it but not 100% sure what it means,” and “know it.” Essentially, the three options for each of us were either that the person did not know the word at all, the person has heard of the word, but can not testify to what it means with full confidence, or the person has not only heard of the word but can also define it.  Here is an example of one of our spreadsheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vz1LJ95LXpGZmjqca4MYHH30Sy4OarYlfTsmu6Bs8Fg/edit?usp=sharing. Upon completion of our individual surveys, we added comments about their relevancy under each of our list of words. We decided to convert our results into percentages, and we added the percentages of the results under each word, while also adding whether these statistics render the word obsolete, still in use, or decreasing in relevancy. To survey the relevance of the potential new words we planned on adding to the dictionary, we created a Google survey and put the survey in the class of 2021 Facebook group, asking if people could take a couple of minutes out of their day to fill it out. We received 98 responses. The Google survey form provides a chart with percentages of the responses for each word, and this helped us to determine whether or not to add the word to the Dictionary. Once we were able to narrow down our list of words to be added to the dictionary, we split this list up among our group members and each person added two words and their respective definitions, while one of us only had to add one (given our odd number of members). Here is the link to the Google survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1FNab_NyatveJpyfkXIer87y8D8ce2L5IjIVDYHapzzI/edit?usp=sharing.             While our individual survey methods were relatively the same, there were a few small differences. Some of us preferred in-person surveys, some relied solely on online surveys, and some of us employed a combination of both. In all of our approaches, we tried to gather a diverse range of people to provide more accurate results. A strong advantage our group had was our individual ties to Greek and social organizations. Being that the majority of us are in different Greek organizations, we were able to gather a variety of responses.Some of the problems we encountered while embarking on this project came about in its later stages. There was a mistake made in one of our postings which resulted in what Dr. Schacht called, “exploding the page.” Initially, we were uncertain as to whether or not we would need to rewrite all of the prior entries for A-F in order to remedy this problem. Luckily, we noticed that Dr. Schacht was listed as a Wiki Administrator and immediately made an appointment to see what could be done. Dr. Schacht was incredibly helpful to our group and helped us fix the error, providing us with a better understanding of the Wiki page, and aiding us in future troubleshooting.            In solving this first problem, we discovered another problem that had occurred as a result of a mistake made by a prior group. The dictionary is split into sections: A-D, E-H, I-L,etc.. We learned that a portion of the dictionary entries was in a different location from the words we had surveyed. This meant that we had to find a way to survey, analyze, and comment on the new updates in the timeframe of a weekend. Group members agreed to split the 62 additional words and survey/update them. This problem was resolved.Upon seeing the number of problems that have occurred in the posting of entries on the dictionary, it may be indicative of the need for a better understanding of the Wiki system by the entire class. The biggest problem that our group encountered was a result of a previous mistake made by past groups which shows that the way that each group understands the Dictionary is important to the experience and effectiveness of groups to come.            Upon the completion of this project, our group agreed on a few things that we wish we had known prior as well as some advice that we would give to future groups. We would also like to include our ideas regarding how we felt that we could have improved our project if we were to do this again. First and foremost, we all agreed that it would be advantageous for future classes to have a better understanding of the way that the Wiki works. Examples of this could be a demonstration on how to post entries, an educational session with Dr. Schacht, as well as listing Dr. Schacht as a resource if a group encounters any technical issues in their use of the Geneseo Wiki. This would be beneficial for not only this project, but also for our career as students. If we understand how the Geneseo Wiki works, students may be able to use it more effectively as a resource in their academic career. For instance, Dr. Schacht demonstrated Wiki’s ability to function as a personal portfolio.            As far as our strategy, we would have liked to include more options on our survey (Familiar, Never heard of it, Heard of it but not sure of the meaning, Never heard of it but could determine the definition through context,  Geneseo-specific, Not Geneseo-specific). This would allow for a better understanding of how words are used within the community, as well as the popularity of the words in question. This would mean implementing a longer online/in-person survey or a series of surveys. We also would have liked to survey more people; to expand our surveying methods. Some of these methods could include surveying other students from different schools (to determine what words are Geneseo-specific), surveying professors (to determine what words are known by different demographics/providing a better insight into generational differences in language), and adding a section for participants to add their own words that they believe should be on the dictionary. This would not require the participants to look at all of the dictionary entries, as this would be overwhelming. Rather, there would be a spot at the end of their survey to write-in their own ideas for slang words which they are using at the time of the survey. It would be up to the group to compare the suggested words to the Dictionary. Another possibility to consider for future groups is how to handle words which are obsolete. As the list expands, the workload placed on both the surveyors and the surveyed may not be cohesive to a good study. Perhaps we should consider not surveying words which have been obsolete for a certain number of dictionary updates.While examining SUNY Geneseo’s student population, it is inevitable for one to take note of the assortment of social groups. In many cases, students within these groups also participate in numerous other clubs or social organizations. However, many participants gravitate towards a specific demographic. Inherently, those drawn to these distinct demographics have unique experiences from those of another. Since each of our dictionary group members are involved in a different group on campus, it was vital for us to examine what was familiar and what was not among all of us. The dictionary project as a whole allowed each group member to get out of their comfort zone and expand their point of view. While exploring the unique dialect of this seemingly divided student population, we were able to come together as one to see how our vocabulary connects us. This report mirrors the dedication I see in your responses to older postings and your introduction of newly-found words. The combination of survey types, along with the scale of familiarity with words that you ask people to respond to, are both key to effective research. More important: the problems that you ran up against with the Wiki—something that the previous class did not experience or that they overlooked—raise some important suggestions for a future class. Having Dr Schacht give a presentation would be a very good idea, and as you point out, not just for the dictionary, but for other helpful uses of the Wiki in students’ careers here at Geneseo.   G-MDictionary Group 2: Margaret Pigliacelli, Sydney Cannioto, Jordan Dilcher, Alexis Banaszak, Andrew Shutes, Cameron Luquer, Rebecca HirschhornDr. DrakeENGL 361: History of the English Language7 May, 2019Final Group Written Report            We began working on this project by first conducting a survey amongst our own group. As we represent students across the three lower years (Freshman through Junior) as well as a variety of majors and extracurricular interests, it was an effective way to narrow down which words were extremely common and which were mostly unknown. When we concluded our initial informal survey of each other, we determined a lengthy list of words that the majority of the group did not recognize and decided to test these for recognition amongst the rest of the student body. We agreed that if every member of our group knew a word immediately upon seeing it that it would be worth it to not test it in consideration of keeping our surveys short enough that others would be willing to take them. After we compiled our list of words, we separated them into smaller groups of around 20-30 words each and assigned them to members of our group to survey.            Initially, all of our group members used Google Surveys to conduct their research. Google Surveys is a particularly helpful tool because it was easy to duplicate the format of the survey so we all had uniform surveys and because the program generates percentages, pie-charts, and other analytic information regarding the results for us. Having the survey based online was also useful because we were able to reach people that we may not have if we only surveyed people we encountered on campus. Each of us posted our surveys into our respective “Class of” pages on Facebook as well as our personal pages and asked people to take the survey and share it. This allowed us to get the survey into the view of everyone who is enrolled in our year at Geneseo. Besides the diversity of age-ranges, we are each involved in different clubs and organizations. Some of the groups that our members were able to send surveys to include a private violin lesson group, a Dungeons and Dragons Group, the co-ed Ultimate Frisbee team, Mock Trial team, and RLK. Each of these interest groups were asked to send the survey on to their own friends and each represent a wide range of ages, majors, and access to different slang lexicons.            After we received our responses for the surveys of more obscure words, we collaborated to think of new words to add to the dictionary. We wanted to have at least three new words for every letter in our range of the dictionary and succeeded in that goal and in some cases exceeding three new words. We ended up with around 20 new words and so decided to all survey all of them in order to get as much data as possible. Because of some problems with the online survey process that will be discussed later, we agreed to conduct this survey in person rather than online. Our members sat in the lobby of their residence halls, in the College Union, and passed out paper surveys in their classes. Since we were all testing the same words, we could rely on the diversity of our research group to account for diversity within our research subjects. Thus, although Onondaga is primarily Freshman housing and the students in a class are likely to be the same major or at least have the same interests, our research was still representative of a wide range of students thanks to our collective involvement in so many different things. We then counted our results by hand which some of our members really disliked and then entered them into an excel spreadsheet which we set to calculate sums and percentages of the data we collected indivdually.            Our members experienced mixed results when it came to the mode of conducting our surveys with some members preferring the online and others preferring the in-person interviews. Some liked that the surveys were online because it did not require them to go and talk to strangers or be forced to spend hours sitting in a location conducting the research in person. However, one problem with the online surveys was that we were limited in the number of responses we received. The student body is flooded with surveys from other students conducting research for Psychology, Communications, or any number of other classes at Geneseo. This has led to many online surveys that are posted to Facebook or emailed directly to list-serves to be deleted or just ignored. Consequently, although we were able to reach a large volume of people easily and quickly, most were not likely to fill out the survey unless they personally knew the member who sent it. We got more responses from the in-person interviews because people are harder to ignore than emails. Even though the in-person surveys were more time consuming and required more energy on the part of the member conducting the survey, everyone reported that most people were happy to complete the survey in person, although some students did complain about having to write their responses by hand.Another problem with our online surveys had to do with the nature of what we were asking of the research participants. Because we were testing words that we knew would be unfamiliar to many people, we should have included an “I don’t know any of these words” option in our survey. However, we did not realize at the outset that this would be a problem. Some of us realized once we started getting feedback from friends who reported very apologetically that they did not know any of the words and so closed the survey. We realize that this likely skewed some of our results since we were checking not only for recognition but also for obsoleteness. Google Surveys does not report how many people open the survey, only how many answers were submitted. Therefore, we had no way of knowing how many people saw the survey but did not know the words, so they were not counted in our total number of responses, affecting our percentages. Some of us edited our surveys and included the option, but it was after the survey was initially sent, meaning that we were not able to get responses from people who looked and closed the survey without the option. On a related note, many of the students who were taking the survey wanted to be helpful and had a notion of there being a “correct” answer. Thus, many guessed at definitions, marking their uncertainty by including a lot of question marks after. In many cases the definitions they provided were in fact a match with that in the dictionary but the fact that they were unsure is something that must be remembered when we consider the difference between recognition and use.Similarly, many of the words we were testing had a general nature or multiple meanings. This led to students marking that they knew a word, but when asked to provide a definition said something completely different from the definition provided on the Geneseo dictionary. This was not a complete disaster because many of the divergent definitions were known by wide numbers of people leading us to add the new definition to the entry. However, it did skew our numbers of recognition because our data was no longer comparable to the percentages already in the dictionary that referred to the same word with a different meaning. One great example of this is the word Lumpy. Our member was looking for the definition “a drink offered at the Vital Spot,” but the 75% of students that said they recognized the word provided the definition “bumpy or uneven.” Because lumpy is a word that has other meanings besides the specific slang usage, we determined that even though 75% of students said they knew the word, lumpy as slang is now obsolete. Another example is krunk juice, which is defined in the dictionary just as “alcohol” generally, but that the majority of students defined specifically as “alcoholic punch or jungle juice at a party.” In this case the definition narrowed to refer to something more specific, but the fact that it is still in wide usage is significant. In both of these cases, the word surveyed does exist in some form but in a way that diverges from the one reported in the dictionary.There were advantages and disadvantages to each of the modes of surveying we conducted besides the things already mentioned. Our members found the in-person survey to be time consuming and tedious especially in calculating the results by hand after the surveys were complete. However, one advantage of the in-person surveys was the immediate feedback from students taking the survey as well as the ability to have a conversation with the students being surveyed. For these reasons amongst others, we believe it may have been more beneficial to have surveyed our new words that would be more recognizable to students online and the more obscure words in person. If we had done this, students would have been able to tell us they did not recognize any of the words or could have asked questions about the definitions we were looking for. Overall, people did not seem content to see language as something so black and white as “I know it” or “I don’t know it” and would have preferred discussion, trying to supplement their answers with as much conjecture as they could fit into the text box. This leads us to conclude that although in-person interviews are more tedious and we may not be able to generate as many numbers as quickly and efficiently, there are definite benefits to talking about language usage rather than merely presenting a concise written survey that leaves little room for expression.Our second survey felt much more accurate for a few reasons. We were able to generate many more responses on our second survey than our first because we were all surveying the same words. When working with percentages, the more data you have the better, something we struggled with when conducting the online surveys. We wish there had been a better way to balance the need to research a large volume of words and the need to keep our survey brief so people would actually fill it out. Perhaps if there had been more time, we would have been able to break up the surveys more, but considering we already had trouble getting students to fill out two we are unsure how successful that would have been either. We were also able to judge more easily the difference between recognition and use during our in-person surveys. Because our second survey invited more discussion and interaction with participants, there was the space to include whether the word was something they had heard or something they use themselves. If we were to participate in this study again, this would definitely be a distinction that we focused on more whether that be by having more conversations or by adding a question asking about frequency of use.We found this study to be a very rewarding experience although sometimes overwhelming. The social aspect of language made it difficult to compile numerical data especially when that data is coming from so many sources. We were not able to find a very strong local voice of Geneseo in the slang we studied, instead encountering a lot of slang that is used across the country at other colleges and by people our ages. Interestingly, the terms that people marked as believing to have originated in Geneseo are the ones they did not know. Perhaps due to our involvement with people all over America on social media, most of the slang is not recognized as local unless it involves explicit mention of Geneseo, a club on campus, or a shop in the village. We believe it is important to keep doing this project as the years go on to see if a local voice returns more prominently like we can see in the past entries in the dictionary or if we are too connected to have many specialized slang terms at our college.This is probably the most thoughtful reflection I’ve seen on the advantages and disadvantages of research methods. You show that you can see problems with online surveys and have learned in the process how to improve them. Moreover, you have shown just how important it is to have an in-person component in research, even if this requires more work.Also, it’s fascinating to find that the same words have new definitions, and you should be commended both for discovering this and reflecting on this. Finding new definitions is as important as finding new words. This suggests that one of the main goals of the Dictionary project is to look not just for words but for MEANINGS that people circulate in communication at Geneseo.            Alice Chen (Assistant Coordinator), Jessica Drechsler (Coordinator), Emma Short, Ariana Vidal, Una McGowan, Jacob Rogers, Sarah HolsbergGroup 3: N-RProfessor Drake7 May 2019Throughout our contribution to the Dictionary of Geneseo, our group has come to the realization that the language spoken at Geneseo is complex and requires specific knowledge of the college and its culture in order to fully understand it. The language spoken at Geneseo is in a constant state of change that corresponds with the changes in society and popularized media, which we attempted to properly document through revisions and additions to the Geneseo Wiki. From the book by Elizabeth Murray entitled “Caught in the Web of Words”, the Lexicographer’s job is to “To show the life history of every word, its origin and any changes of form and meaning. As a historian of the language, not a critic, the lexicographer’s task was to collect all words, rather than to select good words… ” (Murray, 133-134). This standard is what our group strongly identified with as we went through the dictionary. We did our best to act as unbiased historians of the language used at Geneseo in order to see how it has changed and evolved over time.The first step in our process of updating the dictionary was counting how many words and phrases were in our specific section of the dictionary. Upon first glance of our assigned section in the Geneseo Wiki, we could immediately identify which words were commonly used and which were not. As a group, we decided it would be beneficial to separate the words into equal portions and assign each person approximately 30-32 words. We decided this because we assumed that not many students at Geneseo would want to complete a survey that would take longer than five minutes. Each person worked individually to create their own Google survey with their assigned words in order to receive formal data on the words in order to see what words were obsolete. We decided that having a minimum of fifteen responses per person was reasonable so that there would be a total of 105 responses. On the survey, we asked the same question for each word: “How often do you hear or use the word,” and gave the options of “never”, “seldom”, “sometimes”, “often” and “all the time” for students to choose from. We made sure to include a spectrum of possible answers because the answer to the use of a word is not always as simple as “yes” or “no” and we wanted results that were as precise as possible. However, we knew the attention span of the students we would be interviewing would be short, so we limited it to only the five option scale. Since many of our words had multiple different definitions, we made sure to include the specific both the definition of the word and the part of speech next to the question for people to refer to as they choose their answer.Each person in our group had their own methods for spreading their own survey around campus to various people at Geneseo. A handful of us belong to various clubs, sports teams, or other organizations on campus so it was much easier to find people to answer our surveys. The diversity of our group and the wide variety of organizations we take part in caused a rather diverse population to complete the survey. One person who works as an RA simply texted their residents and asked them to fill out the survey while another sent the survey to her sorority and received responses that way. The other members that are not in organizations had a slightly harder time spreading their survey, but did so through friends and even going up to strangers they did not know and asking to email them the survey. The idea to split up the words in the dictionary amongst the group was one that proved to be greatly beneficial because of how quickly the smaller surveys could be completed and by a much larger spectrum of people. Each survey averaged the same amount of questions and thus elicited the same amount of responses.When completing our surveys, we came to the realization that the written word is very different from conversational use of language, and because of this distinction we made sure to use two different forms of surveying. By surveying people formally through Google Survey and then informally by testing out our new words in conversation, we were able to collect different types of results. The popularity of a word ties very closely to how often it is used and typically, the younger generation are the ones who are responsible for the creation of new slang words and phrases. Language varies based on where you are from and the different cultures you are exposed to within the Geneseo community. After gathering all the necessary responses, we got back together to discuss our results from our formal survey. Since Geneseo is a small community, the words and slang in the Geneseo English Dictionary are well known and used amongst most people. The words that were deemed to be obsolete were words that as a group we also had either never heard before or rarely ever used. When determining which word was considered obsolete, we took into account how many people had never heard or used a term before. For example, if over an average of 80-90% of people had not heard or used a word before, it would be then be marked as obsolete in the Geneseo English Dictionary.One of the major struggles some of our group members went through were the choices of words from the N and R category as it pertains to racial slurs and terms involving violent acts such as rape. As a result, we all agreed to refrain from asking people about those terms in person and in public because we were uncomfortable with saying it aloud. We knew just how obscene these words were and did not want to offend anyone nearby who may not have known that this was part of our dictionary project. We had concerns about these sets of terms, but after consulting Dr. Drake we understood the importance of maintaining history as linguists. The members responsible for those sets of terms were reminding people that those were are extremely inappropriate and should not be used carelessly. To our relief, complains and surprised reactions from those being surveyed also informed us that those terms were not used casually. Although we are all still uncomfortable with the idea of those words and its definitions, we learned that we have to be able to discuss any word and understand its etymology no matter how offensive it is.Examples of words we marked as obsolete are “o-face” “roast a bone,” “randy,” “rape lane,” and “rape lot.” All of these words received a majority of “never” responses which signified to us that the people who were surveyed had never heard or used the word. The words which ended up being marked obsolete did not particularly surprise us because we had never heard of those terms either. The words listed above all had either drug or sex-related definition tied to them, some obviously more positive than others. This also did not surprise us because slang terms for drug and sex-related activities are constantly changing in any environment, but especially on a college campus. We noticed that although those terms are not used anymore, there are similar slang terms with similar definitions that have taken their place and become more popular. The words that we considered popular now will most likely disappear within the next several years.Generating new terms was actually much more difficult than we had originally anticipated. To start, we looked at words that were commonly used in Greek social organization such as “pledge mom,” as well as “afters,” which was not a term within our span of assigned letters, and were able to come up with sixteen new words in total. Individually, we took all of these new words and tested them through informal personal interviews with students and friends, casually using them in conversation to gauge whether these new words were familiar to them. Conversational terminology and linguistics, in particular, are constantly changing and evolving and by using casual dialogue to collect data on our new words we were able to receive different types of responses that were more genuine than surveys, which could be influenced by an honest unawareness that an individual uses certain slang terms as often as they really do. It was great to have this insight and different type of data on how often other people used the words we considered to be commonly used. An example of a word that other people did not find extremely common was, “plug: (n) someone who supplies drugs or alcohol.” We were quite surprised at the result of this word because we thought everyone would have at least heard this word commonly in a college campus. “Plug” is not an obsolete word, but we anticipated more people knowing the term than we recorded. Another word was the term, “PMS: (n.) Premenstrual Syndrome which is a time in which a female experiences certain symptoms the week before her period.” Understandably, women who were surveyed all said they have both used and heard of the word all the time while men were either unsure or seldom used and heard the word. Another word that we came up with was “Rancho Viejo,” which is the name of a local Mexican restaurant here in Geneseo. This term is special because, unlike the majority of our other new terms, it is specific to the town and is therefore only known to the people who live there or who frequent the Geneseo area. Those living downstate or anywhere else outside of this college town will be confused by this term. This term is not used commonly in everyday dialogue, but most everyone who goes here will be at least familiar with this term.            During our survey process, we had a somewhat difficult time finding different groups of people outside our normal social circle to question. Most of us gathered our information through our online survey that we sent out to friends. Of course, with friends it is more common that they will use the same type of language that we all normally use. Sending the survey out to people we already know and socialize with daily brought about the results that we initially anticipated. To get the most accurate results regarding slang use at Geneseo, we should have gathered answers from the entire SUNY Geneseo student body, but this would have been impossible to realistically achieve. However, it was possible for us to have gone outside our comfort zones and gotten more in-person surveying. That way, we would have a more diverse group contributing to our results. There would certainly be people out there who still use certain slang terms that we have never heard of before.            In the book “From Memory to Written Record in England, 1066-1307” by Michael Clanchy, he referenced the need for a archive as people were transitioning from the reliance on the spoken word to written texts. As time went on, the need for storing became more important “to keep documents for perpetual remembrance had been the purpose of archives for centuries; what was new was the demand that records should be readily available ‘at all times’” (Clanchy 154). This storage then led to the need for an alphabetical index which was created to help with organization. The Dictionary of Geneseo reflects the importance of a written record. It is necessary to keep track of history and mark the changes made over the years as the college cultural shifts. We can all recognize the history of each individual term and it encourages us to think about how those terms may have been used in the past and how they could be used in the future. Every single word listed on the Geneseo Wiki, no matter how long it has been labeled as obsolete, is significant to our understanding of our community.            We have demonstrated a great understanding of the words in the Geneseo English Dictionary, as well as their etymology. We noticed how words that were previously marked obsolete continued to stay that way and how recently added words were starting to become popularized. While we cannot speak for every person in the Geneseo community as to their knowledge of the terms we tested, it is safe to say that we tried our best to gather the most diverse set of results possible. We found over twenty-six words to be obsolete and we were fascinated with how these words had been used, given the example the dictionary provided. It is interesting to think about how much the language has changed in the span of only a decade. Through our testing, we were able to reflect on how the community has changed along with the changes in the language we use. We are eager to look back on these results and see if these terms we consider to be widely known will still be used years from now.ReferenceClanchy, M.T. From Memory to Written Record England 1066-1307. 1979, Blackwell, 1993.            Jay Bang, Clare Corbett, Hannah Fuller, Carver Kozlowski (Assistant Coordinator), Emma Medina (Coordinator), Olivia Root, and Mary WrynnDr. Graham DrakeENGL 3617 May 2016Group Four Dictionary Report: Words S Through ZThe English-speaking world is comprised of an uncountable number of vernaculars.  They differ by country, region, class, generation, and many other demographic subsets.  Even the smallest of groups can leave their own mark on the language.  Through studying the lexis of a particular community, we can gain unique insight into its evolving culture, trends, and values.  Our group gained such an insight through analyzing words in the Dictionary of Geneseo English beginning with the letters s through z.  Throughout our project we encountered words that have fallen out of use, words that have evolved over time, and newer, more popular words on the Geneseo campus.  The words we studied help define the college community and show us a useful perspective on the ever-changing campus culture.After assigning a group coordinator and assistant coordinator, we divided ourselves to cover each letter group.  Because our portion of the dictionary included the final letters of the alphabet—the letters with the fewest entries—a few members covered an additional letter group to split the workload as evenly as possible.  We familiarized ourselves with our respective words and weeded out which ones were obsolete, outdated, or obscure.  At first glance, most of the words in the dictionary seemed obsolete; additions to the dictionary by previous students also helped identify such obsolete words.  Nonetheless, we decided to examine a selection of obsolete words—such as “webmail” and “window-licker”—as well.  To allow for the greatest amount of data collection possible, we created a Google Forms survey asking respondents to select which terms they have been exposed to and/or use themselves.  We phrased the prompt to include both use and exposure because most people do not use every single word or slang phrase they come across; mere knowledge of a word reflects its use elsewhere.  The survey contained a list of thirteen words listed in the dictionary and nineteen new words we have personally come across during our time at Geneseo.  We chose to put fewer words in the survey as to not make it too time-consuming and overwhelming for respondents, which in theory reduces the probability of nonresponse and potentially errored results.  Some of these new words, such as “Wads Aud” and “Townhouses,” are unique to Geneseo; others, such as “woke” and “vape” are not campus-specific.  The mix of Geneseo-specific and non-specific terms allowed us to both gauge the speech of college students in general and specifically separate Geneseo to study its individual vernacular. The survey was sent to our peers via student email and at the close we totaled 144 responses, more than we anticipated.  Additionally, group members used social media, friend and club connections, and residence halls to gather more responses and consult non-Geneseo students; a few members also held individual conversations with roommates, friends, and other fellow students to add qualitative information to our largely quantitative dataset.  The members that engaged in these conversations found that particular feedback the most interesting; it opened the door for more individualistic feedback including why they use a particular word and in what context.  The major obstacle when we administered the survey face-to-face was the high level of nonresponse—most were either uninterested or did not have the time.  We were nonetheless pleased with the number of responses we received, the diversity of demographic groups we reached, and the balance of raw numeric data and information from individual conversations.  Each of these factors only add to the reliability of our results.“Newer” words garnered more responses than older words already in the dictionary.  For example, out of 144 respondents, 107 heard of or use the term “ultimate frisbee,” 128 for “u-hots,” 106 for “snitch,” and 117 for “uncultured swine”; on the other hand, older words such as “sex-excellent,” “under the sun,” and “unstable girl hair” received seven, sixteen, and one out of ninety-seven responses respectively.  These results confirm our original belief that many or most of the words in the dictionary are outdated and further demonstrate the fluidity of college slang.  Some other terms already in the dictionary, such as “XOXO” for instance, are still in common use at Geneseo.  We accordingly edited the wiki dictionary and marked all appropriate terms obsolete and added our new, more popular words.  Polling results from exclusively non-Geneseo students via social media revealed further information.  All respondents have encountered the new words “woke,” “y’all,” and “snitch” while very few to none have heard of the Geneseo-specific terms “U-hots” and “xc.”  “Woke,” for instance, is defined as being up-to-date, educated, and aware of social issues, which gives it a much broader use.  The Geneseo-specific term “Townhouses,” referring in short to the Saratoga Townhouses on campus, was more recognizable to non-Geneseo students since it still has meaning outside of the Geneseo context.  This information underscored that Geneseo has a unique vocabulary set and demonstrated that a more common word can adopt different meanings based on context and setting. Through informal conversations with peers and additional research we were able to gain insight into the cultural aspects of some of our words.  In the twenty-first century, technology, the internet, and social media have impacted language similar to the invention of the printing press in the 1440s.  We can see this even in the words we studied.  For example, the term “y’all” originates in slang in the American South but has traveled across the nation due to social media, memes, and other media; similarly, the word “yeet” has also spread due to memes.  Memes act as units to convey cultural ideas and a number of our words can be traced and credited to them.  Another meme-related word is “zoo-wee-mama,” which originated in Jeff Kinney’s Diary of a Wimpy Kid series.  As a series that today’s college students would have read in their elementary and middle school days, it has grown as a part of internet meme culture, though not necessarily in everyday speech.  The terms “XOXO” and “xanny” similarly have a place in pop culture with the former making appearances on the television series Gossip Girl and the latter as an abbreviation of “Xanax” used in music.A conversation between one of our group members and a coworker gave us a unique perspective on the term “unstable girl hair.”  The dictionary defines it as “A girl with tight curly hair is said to have hair making her emotionally unstable,” and though it was marked as obsolete as of 2006, we decided to include it in our study.  The coworker (an African American) was shocked by the phrase and pointed out that because the definition cites “tight curly hair,” it automatically includes the majority of black women and women of color in the category of “emotionally unstable” while excluding the majority of white women, who tend to have a less-curly hair texture.  We accordingly labeled the term as insensitive and racist in the dictionary.  This case helps illustrate how changing times influence how we understand language and shed light on problematic elements of speech—a very relevant issue today.  As we have become more aware of how language can reinforce old stereotypes and injustices, parts of speech that were once overlooked are now subject to higher scrutiny.  Instances like this force us to take a closer look at what we once ignored.More research and interaction highlighted how terms even specific to Geneseo can acquire multiple meanings within the environment.  The prefix “Wads” in “Wads Aud” (another obsolete we decided to include) is an abbreviation of “Wadsworth.”  “Wads Aud” is primarily used as shorthand for Wadsworth Auditorium in text messages and is not a part of spoken language.  Not only is there a Wadsworth Auditorium in Geneseo, but there is Wadsworth Street, Wadsworth Library, and the Wadsworth Homestead—thus the prefix “Wads” in and of itself can carry multiple meanings.  “Wadsworth” is most commonly associated with the street name, visible from Newton Hall, home to many off-campus students, and a party location with three sororities, working together in a fundraising initiative known as “Brunch on Wads.”No study is ever perfect, and so too does our project contain a number of pitfalls and limitations.  As previously touched upon, the major pitfall with administering the survey face-to-face was the level of nonresponse.  However, this problem only proved to be minor as the number of other responses more than made up for it.  Though we were successful at reaching a wide range of students from various demographics, we could have included a few questions in the survey relating to demographics (i.e. “What is your major?”  “How long have you attended Geneseo?”  “Are you involved in Greek life?”  “What is your gender?”  “Are you a member of a club, sports team, etc.?”).  A small group of these questions would not have made the survey too long or overbearing and not substantially add to the risk of nonresponse.  Moreover, they would give us a more in-depth view on who uses which words on campus; information on whether a word is used widely across campus or it fills a very niche role would be useful for further study.  Our group member’s conversation with her African American coworker on the term “unstable girl hair” gave us a perspective that would have gone unnoticed if we had not reached out to a wide variety of students outside the online survey; the inclusion of basic demographic questions could have given us more useful information. One last yet somewhat convoluted limitation is the number of words we tested.  All things being equal, more words tested would give us more information on the Geneseo vernacular; however, a survey containing too much increases the risk of error and nonresponse.  Ideally, a series of smaller surveys sent out to a wider variety of students would have allowed us to test more words, but, reaching more students may be easier said than done.  The time limitation of the project itself would be an added challenge.  On a similar note, it may be useful to include a field in the survey asking respondents if there are any other words they believe should be included in the dictionary.  While this could open the door to potentially new words that were originally overlooked, it runs the risk of further complicating the survey with error.  A more in-depth and comprehensive study—likely far outside our resources—would be needed to paint a full picture of the Geneseo vernacular.Throughout the course of our project, we gained useful insight into the fluid language of SUNY Geneseo.  We encountered words that in only the span of a decade have become obsolete; we identified new words adopted into Geneseo English and the media by which they have spread; we became more aware of how words and language evolve and what was once accepted as normal is put under a different light; and, we examined Geneseo’s unique vernacular, how words can have different meanings in and outside the Geneseo context, and how the same word can different meanings within Geneseo.  Geneseo English is a fast-evolving vernacular.  The modernity of our work will undoubtedly wither within a few years—many of our “new words” will become obsolete.  Though this reality appears rather disparaging, linguistics and lexicography are fluid fields, and though a finding one year may be outdated the next, it is still valid and relevant.  Today’s Geneseo English will be an artifact for future retrospective study.It’s significant that this report highlights more than survey methods and results. You’ve also confronted issues of race and pejorative language; the popularity of words outside of Geneseo that seem very common in students’ vocabulary here; and even how “leftovers” from childhood reading can become part of adult college lexis. It’s also fascinating to see how the Internet and related media can create a “leveling” between regions by the prevalence of “y’all”—not just a Southern thing anymore. 

Document generated by Confluence on May 22, 2023 12:37