No point in blaming the dictionary

What is written with a pen cannot be erased by PR

McDonald's continues to struggle with the English language. As reported by the Financial Times, the company's management believes that the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary should change the definition of the word mcjob (literally translated as “mcjob”). Now, according to the dictionary, it means “an uninteresting, low-paid, unpromising job, especially one that has appeared in the developing service sector.” Businessmen from McDonald's don't like this at all. “Makrabota” is too openly associated with this gigantic catering network and at the same time just as openly defines a certain type of hired labor in a not very discreet way.

The word mcjob apparently appeared in American slang in the 1980s, but it became truly popular in the next decade - after the publication of Douglas Copeland's acclaimed novel Generation X. There, the author stated that mcjob (in Russian translation by V. Yartsev “makrabstvo”) is “low-paid, low-honor, unpromising work in the service sector.” It is worth noting that Copeland turned out to be not only a good writer, but a very competent lexicographer: professional linguists found it possible to transfer this definition to academic dictionaries almost unchanged.

McDonald's, however, believes that the word "macrowork" (or, if you prefer, "macrabism") "is insulting to the talented, passionate, hard-working people who serve customers every day." This is exactly how David Fairhurst, one of the top managers of McDonald's in Northern Europe, defined the employees of his corporation. Therefore, in fact, the dictionary definition is “outdated and unrelated to reality.” The corporation clearly intends to launch a major campaign for a revision of the English language.

This is not the first time the largest fast food chain has attacked philologists. McDonald's tried to do something similar in 2003, only then the target of corporate PR became another authoritative dictionary of the English language - the famous academic Merriam-Webster, which defined "macrowork" in an equally unenthusiastic way. McDonald's CEO Jim Cantalupo said at the time that this was "an inaccurate definition of working in a restaurant."

McDonald's, however, itself gave the English-speaking public a reason to create the word mcjob. The corporation’s immoderate predilection for creating its own gastronomic terms with the prefix Mc (aka “corporate style”) has led to the fact that a new word-formation model has almost formed in the English language. It would be strange if this rich advertising idea were not used by the people for active word creation. Now, perhaps, there are many more people who associate the prefix Mc with fast food, and only scientists remember that this is how traditional Scottish surnames were once formed.

True, judging by the official statements of representatives of the corporation, its leaders clearly have no idea what the compilers of dictionaries do. In the words of Cantalupo and Fairhurst, there is clearly some resentment that lexicographers allegedly do not take into account, as they say in the business world, the tireless concern of company management for personnel. Nevertheless, the English (and any other) language does not care at all what prizes and awards for personnel policy McDonald's received and what are the chances of a resourceful restaurant scrubber to make a dizzying career in this public catering chain. And a dictionary is just a “mirror of language”; scientists simply record reality. And since the language has the word mcjob, since people use it in everyday speech with a certain meaning, then it must be recorded and entered into the dictionary pages.

But if McDonald's really intends to change the modern English language, then all the power of corporate PR should be directed not against the compilers of the Oxford dictionary, but to ensure that the word mcjob changes its meaning in the minds of millions of English speakers. But it is possible that corporate pressure can have a certain effect: if the publishers of the dictionary get tired of arguing with rich food producers, next to the controversial word, for example, they can put the label “offensive”. But this, perhaps, will not stop people from using the word mcjob in relation to any monotonous and low-paid work.

Vladimir DZAGUTO