by Suman Gupta

In an earlier posting I had discussed catchwords in terms of perceptual frequency estimations and empirical frequency measurements. That concluded uncertainly by noting that while these methods help to identify catchwords, they say little about why catchwords catch. Ayan-Yue’s posting then paused on this question with empirical measurements in mind. He proposed that their indicativeness could be bolstered by calling upon NLP methods, particularly by employing embeddings in artificial neural nets. This seems to me an enormously promising direction and there’s much to consider there. Here, however, I pause on the other – less data-dependent – approach: could perceptual frequency measurements be helpful for addressing why catchwords catch?

Empirical frequency measurements – in fact, data-analytical methods generally -- and perceptual frequency estimations draw upon different kinds of sources. The former calls upon datasets, and the kinds of possible inferences depend upon their scale and granularity. For catchwords, the relevant nodes in the dataset which inform analysis are: 

• at the lexical level (word/phrase-units and clusters of such units, their proximities and orderings) and
• at the annotative level (for example, noting predetermined genre/register categories, marking values in emphases/directions of interlocution, selecting relevant context indicators).

The relationship within and between the lexical and annotative levels are set according to the objective of data analysis, such as, to understand why catchwords catch. In other words, the purpose for which analysis is undertaken determines how these nodes are processed in relation to each other. Accordingly, the rationale of the analysis structures both the eliciting/designing and the processing/interpreting the dataset. This rationale is not derived from the dataset but works upon it, so to speak, from outside to lead towards inferences as to why catchwords catch.

Perceptual frequency estimations are made loosely by individuals at certain junctures. Insofar as research goes, the source that is indicative of such an estimation is a relevant record. Such a record might appear as (or in) news articles, official reports, scholarly publications, fictional narratives, publicity materials and so on. One record of this sort may be interesting in many ways, but it is unlikely to be useful for understanding why catchwords catch. However, a set of such records which are indicative of estimations at various junctures and from different perspectives – an informing archive -- can be used to address that question. Such an archive can be examined to make inferences about why a particular word caught on.

The content of each record offers a rationale, in its argument and form, which reveals or raises indications of perceptual estimations. The rationales of several such records can be seen in relation to each other; by attending to the interweavings and mutual bearings of these rationales, inferences can be made about why catchwords catch. We may say: the rationales for inferring why catchwords catch are inside the content of the records and the archive, and research involves deriving the rationale from the content. To restate: each record offers a substantive observation/argument relevant to why a catchword caught on; the archive allows for links between these substantive observations/arguments to be made; by attending to the archive accordingly, patterns and causalities can be discerned to explain why catchwords catch.

There could be two ways in which a record could be indicative for perceptual frequency estimations of catchwords: indirectly or directly.  

• Indirect indication may involve records of a term being used in an original way that would become common thereafter, of a term being defined and redefined in particular ways that garner consensus, of usage of a term with a nod to earlier usages, and so on.
• Direct indication may involve records which explicitly consider the popularity of a term, actively delimit the scope and fluidity of a term, reflect on the overuse/hype/cliché-character of a term, reflect upon a term’s multifarious relevances, and so on.

Indirectly and directly indicative records address the why-catchwords-catch question in distinctive ways: the former by recording the reasons why they caught on and the latter by interim assessments of their reasons for catching on (or for decatching).         

In brief, the archive for studying perceptual frequency estimations of catchwords presents a textualized process. It traces the pathways through records whereby a word is proposed and contested, adopted and adapted, defined and redefined, standardized and updated, acknowledged and accepted, interrogated and qualified or relegated. In this textualized process, significant insights into why certain words caught on at certain social junctures can be found. Those include reasonable insights into how the catching on – extensively or intensively or both – has worked.

So far, my research into why specific catchwords have caught on has been based predominantly on the textual process for perceptual frequency estimations. It has involved building and reading archives of records for given catchwords. To confirm that a catchword is indeed objectively one, I have occasionally taken recourse to the most easily available tools for making empirical usage-frequency measurements. Reassured by those, I have then gone about looking for records – building an archive – for the catchword in question. The records that I include in my archive have one or more of the following indications relevant to perceptual estimations:

1. First or initial usage of a catchword, especially noting the connotative nuance that may account for an extant word or neologism to start catching on at a particular juncture.
2. Subsequent definitions of the catchword with its catchy connotations and contexts in view (by ‘definition’ I have a particular kind of formulation in mind, which I am sure is much the same as what you have in mind already – but definitions are an interesting business for catchwords and a separate positing on that will follow).
3. Renuancings or adaptations irrespective of definitions in various contexts and registers, with attention to connotative shifts.
4. Reflections on the usage of catchwords as catchwords, especially in terms of scale and application.  
5. Opaque usage of a catchword to suggest that it is such, often marked by some sort of emphasiser, such as by italicising or putting in quotation marks.
6. Relationships of such words to other relevant and related words, and/or their placement within a distinctive vocabulary of a collective formation.
7. Observations on catchwords becoming everyday terms and therefore not being catchwords any longer, or coming to be regarded as clichés, or becoming anachronistic, or being replaced by other terms.

Somewhere in an archive of records with such indications I expect to find clues towards explaining why catchwords catch.  

Inset image: Chris93, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.