quote: McDonald's Corp. is reviving its campaign to ditch the dictionary definition of "McJob," this time setting its sites on the vocabulary of Britons. The world's largest fast food company said Tuesday it plans to launch a campaign in the U.K. this spring to get the country's dictionary houses to change current references to the word "McJob."
The Oxford English Dictionary, considered by many wordsmiths as the gold standard for the English language, is one of those that will be targeted. It defines the noun as "an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector."
quote: In 2003, editors at the Merriam-Webster dictionary declined to remove or change their definition of "McJob" after McDonald's balked at its inclusion in the book's 11th edition. Instead, the Springfield, Mass. publisher said the word was accurate and appropriate.
Your thoughts, Hatrack? Does the definition of McJob, however accurate, demean the McDonald's Corporation? If so, do you think they can do anything about it? Unless they copyrighted the use of "Mc" in front of their words (not likely) what could they do? Could they sue for slander or libel even if the definition is, to a degree, accurate? Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully the shameful flavor of the word mcjob will influence Mcdonalds into offering more attractive benefits to their workforce, it wouldn't be the first time a company has done it.
Then again their prices might go up if the do. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they can/should be able to do something about it. However, I think it is a dumb thing to put into a dictionary.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: I don't think they can/should be able to do something about it. However, I think it is a dumb thing to put into a dictionary.
posted
Unless and until working at McDonalds ceases to be an unsatisfying, low-paying job with few prospects, I don't think there's a whole lot they can do about it. I'm kind of amused that they're swinging the PR bat at it, though- I mean, it's not like there seems to be a lack of people signing up for those McJobs in most places.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, you can sue for anything, especially if you have enough money, but I would be ashamed of our courts if they won. I'd never heard of Mcjob as a word but if it is one, then that definition seems fine to me. The only problem I see with it is that it targets one company. Granted, McDonald's, as the largest fast food company, is kind of the standard and as far as that goes, it's going to have to take the good with the bad.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless and until working at McDonalds ceases to be an unsatisfying, low-paying job with few prospects, I don't think there's a whole lot they can do about it.
If those standards are met, do you think the dictionary would revise the definition?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Dictionaries are supposed to be paragons of accuracy. And in this case, they got it completely wrong," said Walt Riker, a McDonald's spokesman. "It's a complete disservice and incredibly demeaning to a terrific work force and a company that's been a jobs and opportunity machine for 50 years."
What Mr. Riker is failing to grasp is that the dictionaries did not coin the word; they're merely reporting on a word in common usage today and providing a defnition based on what what was clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it. Trying to get a dictionary to change its definition is simply ludicrous. And irritating.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If those standards are met, do you think the dictionary would revise the definition?
Only if people stop using the word in this context, which is relatively unlikely.
Perhaps they can start calling them "Wal-Jobs" or something, but once the meme is out there, it tends to stick around.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard the "Mc" added to other things as well, such as McDojos, which unflatteringly refers to a certain type of ubiquitous martial arts dojo.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: What Mr. Riker is failing to grasp is that the dictionaries did not coin the word; they're merely reporting on a word in common usage today and providing a defnition based on what what was clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it. Trying to get a dictionary to change its definition is simply ludicrous. And irritating.
You are exactly right. What most people fail to realize is that dictionaries are descriptive tools—they just reflect the words that are out there among English speakers. There was a post on this subject on Language Log the other day, and I think the conclusion is spot-on:
quote:In a way, the McJobs matter is a self-inflicted wound. At the 1987 trial in which McDonald's prevented Quality Inns International from naming a new hotel chain McSleep Inns, a corporate representative related how the company's icon, Ronald McDonald, had traveled around the country and actually taught children how to add the Mc- prefix before many different words, such as "McFries," "McShakes," and "McBest." Then McDonald's vice-president for advertising testified that the purpose of this campaign was to create a "McLanguage" that was specifically associated with McDonald's. The campaign worked. Suddenly hundreds of new Mc- words appeared in the press, including "McHospital," "McStory," "McTelevision," "McArt," "McLawyers," and, you guessed it, "McJobs." The meaning conveyed by Mc- was pretty clear in all the newly created words.
Now McDonald's wants to upgrade the very meaning it created all by itself. That may take some doing.
If you want to create a new prefix and then release it into the wild, you can hardly complain that it's no longer tame.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless and until working at McDonalds ceases to be an unsatisfying, low-paying job with few prospects, I don't think there's a whole lot they can do about it.
If those standards are met, do you think the dictionary would revise the definition?
I think one could wait a loooong time for McDonalds to meet those standards.
But, hypothetically speaking, no, I don't think the dictionary would revise its definition. But McDonalds might actually be able to win a lawsuit. Most kinds of defamation lawsuits require that the story/phrase/word/whatever be untrue.
ADD: One random, unverified internet source claims McDonalds presently has a job turnover rate of around 200% yearly.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there's absolutely no way that McDonalds could ever win such a suit. Here's the dictionary from the Oxford English Dictionary:
quote:An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.
First of all, there's no reference to McDonalds anywhere in there. And this word with its meaning is a fact—that is, people use that word to mean just what the dictionary describes. There's no untruth, there's no malice, there's no opinion on McDonalds from the OED or even anything directed at McDonalds.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, even if somehow McDonalds became a paragon of gainful employment the term likely wouldn't change for a long time. The way I see it, the phrase wasn't even specifically deirected at McDonalds per-se, but more at the whole fast-food/convenience industry that grew along with it. Even if it were a dream to work there, the "Mc" designator would often still be used to denote the cookie-cutter nature of something. This based on the vast proliferation of McDonalds across the world, so even if the "low-paid job with few prospects" eventually dropped off it would just be replaced with something like: "run-of-the-mill corporate drone job with few prospects"
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the really stupid thing about all this is . . . does McDonald's really think that if this word becomes firmly entrenched in the English language, that they will have fewer applicants or that the quality of their employees will change? Call a spade a spade for heaven's sake. There are lots of people who need a job, even if it's "an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects."
If they want to bother somebody, go bother the Washington Post, which, according to the article, published the first usage of the word "McJob" some time ago. And good luck with that one. Poor, poor, McDonald's, with over a gazillion customers served. I think a monstrously successful company with a clown as its icon, no less, needs to have a bit of a sense of humor about itself. If they were smart, they would wage a snappy counter-campaign putting a positive spin on the term McJob rather than going after dictionaries, for heaven's sake!
ETA: Especially in light of the "mc" campaign described in Jon Boy's post!
quote: "Dictionaries are supposed to be paragons of accuracy. And in this case, they got it completely wrong," said Walt Riker, a McDonald's spokesman. "It's a complete disservice and incredibly demeaning to a terrific work force and a company that's been a jobs and opportunity machine for 50 years."
What Mr. Riker is failing to grasp is that the dictionaries did not coin the word; they're merely reporting on a word in common usage today and providing a defnition based on what what was clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it. Trying to get a dictionary to change its definition is simply ludicrous. And irritating.
posted
I think the whole campaign is simply a PR stunt. "No PR is bad PR", is the operational principle that McD's is using here, IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt McDonald's is going to suffer too much from the definition. There will still be plenty of highschool kids who want a job and they'll be just as likely to apply at McDonalds as any other fast food place, despite what's written in a dictionary.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
McDonalds complains about McJobs, but then brags that so many people successful people, and just so many people, got their first job at McDonalds, where they learned about work schedules and how to deal with bosses. Then these people moved on. This implies that McDonalds knows that its positions "[Are] unstimulating, low-paid job[s] with few prospects..." and is trying to shamelessly take opposing positions at the same time.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What most people fail to realize is that dictionaries are descriptive tools—they just reflect the words that are out there among English speakers.
Yup. The dictionary tells us what words mean when people use them, not what they should mean.
If people use the word McJob to describe an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, then it is absolutely correct for the dictionary to reflect that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
McDonalds tries too hard avoid looking like what it obviously is.
If they want to be viewed as an upscale, healthy restaurant chain that offers good long-term jobs with excellent working conditions, then they should actually become such a restaurant chain, rather than use advertising campaigns to pretend like they are. Nobody is fooled, I think.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is a dumb thing to put into a dictionary.
Exactly! This is one reason I have been very upset about the current state of modern dictionaries. Just another sign of dumbing down America (or English for that matter). There are way too many more important words that should be in a dictionary to add in these phrases that are at best silly and never going to be used outside of a limited context.
Just in case anyone will say the usual - then you don't have to buy them - well, I haven't. I own a large three volume set that is far more useful.
". . . dictionaries did not coin the word; they're merely reporting on a word in common usage today and providing a defnition based on what what was clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it."
Dictionaries, if they are at all useful, should not be reporting on anything. They should be a reference and teaching tool for improving English knowledge and skills for at least vocabulary. Adding Mc-whatever jargon is horrible and degrading for any educational tool worth using. Otherwise they are nothing more than fun reading material that quickly goes out of date.
"I doubt McDonald's is going to suffer too much from the definition."
I guess I have already said this before, but the English language suffers. Can you imagine a college kid using McJob in a serious college paper? For that matter, an article in an important professional journal that doesn't have to do with economics?
"The dictionary tells us what words mean when people use them, not what they should mean."
YIKES! I think any dictionary worth its salt will say what the words should mean. Saying what people mean (particularly contemporary) should be lower down on the definition and perhaps as a side note for the most jargon specific.
None of this has anything to do with defending McDonalds. I don't care about that. It has everything to do with the state of education these days.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While we may not want to admit the ugly cousins are related to us, I think a comprehensive dictionary that leaves out words that are part of the language is a failure of a dictionary.
You could put out a dictionary that covers only the respectable words in English, but it is, inherently, non-comprehensive.
The proplem with defining words by what they "should" mean, beyond not being a dictionary but rather an ettiquette guide, is the question of who gets to define the "should." One of the things that I love about English is that it is so egalitarian and democratic. If enough people say a word and mean it a certain way, it is part of the language.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How? Didn't you already know what it meant? Finally, lets assume you didn't. Why would it be useful to put it in a dictionary when all you need to do is ask the person who said it what they mean? Its not as if it is a complicated word that is important to the English language.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You could put out a dictionary that covers only the respectable words in English, but it is, inherently, non-comprehensive. "
Such as my four volume set. To say that isn't comprehensive wouldn't be a very good description. Yet, it isn't filled with modern jargon that is of "one note" use. I guess its about what one considers the reason for a dictionary.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what really annoys me about this? They put the word in with caps, which means it can't be used in Scrabble. And "mcjob" is a yummy Scrabble word.
The whole mcphenomenon would be a useful tool in the Scrabble arsenal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean by what they are? What the words signify or mean, or what they are as cultural artifacts?
quote:Such as my four volume set. To say that isn't comprehensive wouldn't be a very good description.
Well, it isn't completely. The Oxford English Dictionary is dozens of volumes, so anything shorter is obviously leaving out some words. If it is leaving out ANY words, it isn't comprehensive. That's not meant pejoratively - it can still be a very nice dictionary.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the words signify or mean when used in an ordinary or traditional sense. Like I said, having modern or jargon specific definitions added on to a word should be near the bottom or as a side note. Any modern or jargon-like words should either be left out or put into a dictionary that is for those kind of things.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any modern or jargon-like words should either be left out or put into a dictionary that is for those kind of things.
Like a comprehensive dictionary that covers every word in the language?
If I understand what you're saying, you want the standard desktop dictionary to not include informal words or words from dialects.
That's fine. It's leaving things out, but it is choosing to limit its scope. That's certainly okay - desktop dictionaries have to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Oxford English Dictionary is dozens of volumes"
Ok, that is different. If they want to put in Mcjobs when they have that much room, fine by me (although I still think it takes away some credibility. A word should be used for at least 20 to 50 years first). My familiarity with dictionaries that actually get used are one to three volumes. And, sadly, these quick reference dictionaries *still* add words that take away room for more important ones.
"20 to 50 years first." Otherwise, you are going to have to buy a book every year with things you could ask the person sitting next to you - or pay attention to context - to understand easily. I use dictionaries to help me spell a word or know what one means, not as a cultural indicator.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If they want to be viewed as an upscale, healthy restaurant chain that offers good long-term jobs with excellent working conditions, then they should actually become such a restaurant chain, rather than use advertising campaigns to pretend like they are. Nobody is fooled, I think.
I was! You stole my innocence, you heartless s.o.b.! Give it back!
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you greatly misunderstand the purpose of a dictionary, Occasional. It's definitely not to define only the words that meet a certain standard, like those that could be used in a college paper. The English language is not suffering, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be. It's just changing, as all languages do, and that apparently bothers you.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I think you greatly misunderstand the purpose of a dictionary, Occasional. It's definitely not to define only the words that meet a certain standard, like those that could be used in a college paper. The English language is not suffering, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be. It's just changing, as all languages do, and that apparently bothers you.
Yeah, tell 'em all to fark off. You're a hoopy frood.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's just changing, as all languages do, and that apparently bothers you."
No, it doesn't. It is a matter of priority. As words fall out of favor or use, they can be excused. I am not worried that an 1828 dictionary is not the same as a 1980 one. What I am worried about is that there are legit words that are getting left out because new words that are not essential to the English language (and more indicative of pop culture) are crowding them out.
What is the purpose of a dictionary to you? I know what the purpose of a dictionary is for me.
This discussion has gotten me into thinking of getting into the dictionary writing market. Are words and their definitions copywrited? Do I have to come up with my own way of describing them in my own words? I could call it "The Literate English Dictionary" compilation.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This book and its companion, The Highly Selective Thesaurus for the Extraordinarily Literate, are prescriptive rather than descriptive, dedicated to recording language as it should be rather than how it often is.
quote:What I am worried about is that there are legit words that are getting left out because new words that are not essential to the English language (and more indicative of pop culture) are crowding them out.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You know what really annoys me about this? They put the word in with caps, which means it can't be used in Scrabble. And "mcjob" is a yummy Scrabble word.
The whole mcphenomenon would be a useful tool in the Scrabble arsenal.
Or just come play with us. We're very lax about the "is it in the dictionary" rule. We don't even have one available when we play. We use just about any word we can reasonably use in a sentence.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Grumpy because you managed to say that so much better than I did!
