British linguist, author and professor Lynne Murphy wrote this opinion piece in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, addressing recent protests by Tottenham Hotspur fans.
The piece likens recent protests over the inclusive of the words "yid" and "yiddo" in the newest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary to other dictionary-related protests of the past.
The terms have been adopted by football fans across England as a way to refer to Spurs supporters, and the clubs own supporters have also begun to utilize the term.
The problem with the term is that it is "originally and frequently derogatory and offensive" toward people of the Jewish faith. The word first spawned as a self-referential for Jews in the Yiddish language. However, it took on an offense connotation when it was born into other languages, most notably English, in the 1930's.
Murphy defends OED's inclusion of the word, citing the fact that the purpose of the dictionary is for historical reference. And if Spurs fans and other football fans are going to adopt an offensive term as their own, then it should be documented.
The theme is definitely less-than-clear to me. It's clear that the author is focused on language and the dictionary (which makes sense, seeing that she is a linguist), but the nutgraph does not appear until the second sentence of the third paragraph.
The paragraphs before the the nutgraph focus too much on other somewhat-related instances of similar situations as opposed to more feasible background information that would offer someone who is less familiar with the situation appropriate background.
This background information comes later, after the nutgraph. While I don't necessarily agree with the structure that the author elected to go with here, I do understand her attempt.
Murphy's use of research and statistics is clear. She draws from a 2019 survey of Spurs fans, which actually offers insights directly from the supporters themselves. The survey even included information regarding Jewish supports, whom one may assume would consider the terms more offensive.
The lead is less-than-spectacular. She seems to be trying make it clear that there is historical context to this issue. It's certainly a unique take, and not something that many people think about. However, that's the issue for me. As a sports fan, I am more interested in how it affects fans, players and the wider sports world. There isn't much of that in this piece.
Furthermore, there are a lot of big words and uninteresting terms and facts. Again, being someone who read the piece because of football as opposed to because of an interest in language, I found myself having to reread certain parts of the story multiple times. I did respect how the author used a clever turn of phrase near the nutgraph, as she said "Tottenham Hotspur has shown the yellow card to the Oxford English dictionary." This statement proved she knew football, or at least fooled me into thinking she did. Sometimes one sentence or phrase establishes all-important creditability with your readers.
The kicker was most definitely stronger than the lead. Murphy's opinion is clear here. She states that despite what Spurs or their fans say or feel about the inclusion of the terms in the dictionary — and their association with them — its purpose is being achieved. A conversation is taking place.
I think it's evident that Murphy may be more fit for academic and novel writing as opposed to opinion writing. And there's no shame in that. She did some things well, but there are definitely some weak spots. With that said though, it's an interesting piece. It definitely taught me something.
Comments