![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Inventing-new-words.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Even though it seems highly rule-bound, the English language changes all the time.\u00a0Every year new words are added to the dictionary.<\/p>\n
These days a lot of new words come from popular culture and new technologies. And they spread online. New words are made by\u00a0\u00a0changing existing words, adding to them, abbreviating them or they are spoken acronyms. Quite often words are \u2018borrowed\u2019 from other languages. Words borrowing is of course tied up in geographies-power-trading-mobility-invasions etc. Borrowing isn\u2019t neutral. But neither are popular culture or new technologies.\u00a0Even new words have histories.<\/p>\n
Some new words come from the academy. Scholars are in the word-changing business.\u00a0\u00a0We can probably all think of scientists who name a \u2018new to us\u2019 species or sub-species, a star and\/or process. However, word invention is not confined to science and people who make Nobel prize winning discoveries. Many of us need new terms to explain the results of our research. We can\u2019t always find the term that we want in the extant literatures. We need to invent a fitting term ourselves. And this new\u00a0\u00a0terminology signals the novelty of our contribution.<\/p>\n
Of course sometimes naming things and claiming novelty is more for its own sake than anything else. Witness the never-ending adjectives that accompany the verb leadership. In this and other such cases,\u00a0\u00a0the new name does not signal a significant novel contribution, but rather a minor addition. Or there is the \u2018new\u2019 research method that is already well known and widely used, just not under the new name. Claiming ownership in this kind of situation borders on the unethical as naming rights were not negotiated with the others already doing the same work. These two kinds of naming practices are part of an academic status game (Bourdieu would call this playing the game of academic distinction) \u2013 claiming to be the first to do something can be part of the same status game. (Don\u2019t get me started on calling something after yourself.) Promotions and citations are built on how many uses the new name accrues.<\/p>\n
However, there\u00a0are<\/em>\u00a0lots of occasions where scholars\u00a0do<\/em>\u00a0have something different to say and where they need to find a new term. New academic terms can be made by adding to existing words, putting together two terms that have previously existed separately, using terms from other languages, turning adjectives or verbs into nouns or finding something in the research data that will do the job.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve had to invent new terms in my own research. My first foray into word invention came in my PhD which was about disadvantaged schools. When I visited schools the principal would always explain what was important and different about their school. They invariably said, \u201cThis school, this community, these kids\u2026 \u201d So I invented the term \u2018thisness\u2019 to suggest that even though the schools might have lots of things in common, they were also distinct. Alas, the term \u2018thisness\u2019 hasn\u2019t really caught on and I can see why, it doesn\u2019t sound very serious and is probably too peculiar. I am sure if you talk with more senior colleagues they will be able to tell you about the terms that they invented too, I hope with rather more success than \u2018thisness\u2019.<\/p>\n Doctoral researchers are often afraid to invent names. This fear is part of feeling like a \u2018student\u2019, feeling you don\u2019t have the necessary expertise, perhaps even the right, to come up with your own term. Who am I to make up a new name for this result? I must have just missed the relevant term in the literature review. The right word must be out there somewhere, I just need to look harder.<\/p>\n Well yes, there might be something already. But maybe not. After all, you did make the case for a specific contribution and anticipated that the literatures might need something additional when you pitched your research project.\u00a0\u00a0So perhaps the Thing-in-the-Data-Analysis does need, in the end, a new name.<\/p>\n Doctoral researchers need to take the question of new names to their supervisors \u2013 they are in the position to know whether a suitable term already exists. Or whether the proposed new term is actually not significant enough to warrant doing it. Supervisors are also a good sounding board for thinking up the new appropriate term, they can reassure, encourage and support you in new-naming. (See what I did there.)<\/p>\n So my message here is be both bold and ethical in word-invention. If you do need a new word, summon up a bit of courage and just do it. Go ahead and make up a term. And if you are a doctoral researcher, know that inventing new words is part and parcel of scholarship. It\u2019s part of the fun. It\u2019s being creative and \u2018truthful\u2019. And it\u2019s one of the rewards of research when you see the term that you made actually resonates with others \u2013\u00a0\u00a0and they use it too.<\/p>\n PS. Although this tedtalk blithely ignores how colonialism and globalisation are significant in word borrowing, it does show that many new words start in the academy and then spread.<\/p>\n