Abstract Summary
Since its inception in 1951, the American Name Society has promoted the scholarly investigation of names. With this goal, the Society holds an annual word-of-the-year contest. The linguistic winners not only reflect, but may also affect national developments. The (dis)advantages of combining folk epistemes to this academic initiative are discussed.
Abstract :
In 1951, a small group of theoretical and applied linguists met to discuss a bold plan: splintering off from the American Dialect Society (ADS) and forming a new scholarly society exclusively devoted to the scientific investigation of names and naming. After much deliberation, the plan was set into action and the American Name Society (ANS) was born. Since then, the ANS has promoted academic research into not only the linguistic development and socio-cultural application of names. As the largest and oldest scholarly society for onomastic research, it has also sought to raise public awareness of the ways in which names may simultaneously reflect and direct contemporary public discourse. Towards that end, each year, the ANS, like its mother organization the ADS, selects a name of the year for several onomastic categories. From place names (toponym) to personal names (anthroponym), the winning words selected by the ANS provide many powerful insights into the underlying diachronic and synchronic developments of US American society and its evolving stakeholders. For example, in 2015, ‘Caitlyn Jenner’ was selected as personal name of the year. In 2008, the word chosen for anthroponym of the year was ‘Barack Hussein Obama’. The official criteria used for such selections are purely linguistic. For example, the estimated frequency and familiarity of a name within the popular media are considered as well as a word’s relative degree of productivity as reflected by linguistic coins attested in the popular lexicon (e.g. ‘Obamacare’, ‘obamagration’, ‘obamagasm’, ‘baracknophobia’). Despite the scientific foundation of these deliberations, the initial selection of and subsequent attention given to these onomastic winners clearly have implications for stakeholders far beyond the ivory tower. In view of this influence, the proposed presentation critically assesses the relative (dis)advantages of formally applying both lay and folk epistemes to this ever-popular yearly contest of words.
