Could Facebook's new software improve our recognition of new slang?
When it comes to language, Facebook wants to get ahead of the curve.
The company that scours its social network for new terms and phrases, then stores them in an evolving 鈥渟ocial glossary.鈥�
The company鈥檚 patent, which was granted on Tuesday, is particularly hunting for neologisms 鈥� new pieces of language that are being used, but haven鈥檛 yet entered the common vernacular.
Neologisms include 鈥� while rapidly evolving technology such as 鈥渂logosphere,鈥� or 鈥渘etroots鈥� 鈥� which Merriam Webster defines as 鈥渢he who communicate via the Internet especially by blogs."
In its application, the company says it is looking for 鈥渟lang, terms of art, portmanteaus, syllabic abbreviations, abbreviations, acronyms, names, nicknames, re-purposed words or phrases, or any other type of coined word or phrase.鈥�
But it isn鈥檛 interested in phrases that are defined in 鈥渨idely-available dictionaries." The software works by first spotting terms, checking to see that they are not already being widely used, then adding it to the social glossary. It will also review the terms to see if they鈥檙e still being used, including by soliciting feedback from users. If a word is determined to have fallen out of favor, it鈥檚 removed from the glossary, the application says.
Facebook , but its patent application provides some examples, including the potential to improve software that aims to predict what a user will type by including words and phrases that aren鈥檛 yet in the dictionary.
Recently, example sentences in the widely-used Oxford English Dictionary have also provoked a debate about language and stereotypes.
In January, Michael Oman-Reagan, an anthropology doctoral candidate at Memorial University of Newfoundland, discovered several example sentences which he described as sexist, pointing particularly to the word 鈥渞abid,鈥� for which the dictionary used the phrase 鈥渞abid feminist" as an example.
But after he pointed out the sentence to Oxford on Twitter, he received what he later described as a 鈥渟narky鈥� reply.
鈥淚f only there were a word to describe how strongly you felt about feminism鈥︹�� Oxford replied, sparking a debate about that against charges of political correctness.
But that wasn鈥檛 the point of his initial posts, Mr. Oman-Reagan , noting that the use of the phrase had previously been highlighted by writer Nordette Adams in 2014.
鈥淲hen Oxford editorially selects example sentences reproducing sexist stereotypes, they are making implicit, prescriptive statements about gender and language,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淲e might also ask Oxford: Why do you choose to use gendered examples for words that are not about gender, like nagging, grating, housework, doctor, rabid, etc?鈥�
Katherine Connor Martin, head of content creation at the publisher, later responded to his tweets in , saying that the dictionary鈥檚 use of example sentences 鈥渟ometimes falls short of the ideal.鈥�
But, Ms. Connor Martin wrote, the phrase 鈥渨as a poorly chosen example in that the controversial and impolitic nature of the example distracted from the dictionary鈥檚 aim of describing and clarifying meaning.鈥�
Instead, she said, the dictionary could have used a more generic example, such as 鈥渞abid extremist鈥� or 鈥渞abid fan.鈥�
Oxford and other widely-used dictionaries have also prided themselves on staying hip by . But some additions, such as the word 鈥渟wag,鈥� which was added to an , prompt groans, including as early as 2008.
鈥淕et a new motto people,鈥� one blogger wrote. "Stop being sheep! Unless you鈥檙e a rich sheep. Then you can brush your teeth with swag, smack peons with swag, and get it tatted on your chest like Tupac if you fancy to." Commenters on the post also debated whether the term had been used correctly.
By removing words or offering users the chance to edit them, Facebook's social glossary software could potentially be more responsive. A Facebook product designer credited with creating the social glossary software says the company often focuses on revamping its products to reflect how people use them.
鈥淔acebook is a fascinating place because on one hand we try to design products that are foundational and useful for as many people as possible,鈥� says Jasper Hauser, a design manager at the company, in . 鈥淭his makes it a bit impractical to think about any specific group of people. On the other hand, we increasingly find that different cultures, geographies and platforms require us to rethink how people actually use our products."
