Plain English
plain

  • How do words get into the dictionary? Part 2: changing times

    Posted by on February 08, 2012

    In the previous post on this topic, we looked at the criteria traditionally applied by dictionary-makers when considering new words for inclusion. The question is as old as lexicography itself. When he wrote his Plan of an English Dictionary in 1747, Dr Johnson noted that it is ‘not easy to determine by what rule of distinction the words of this dictionary were to be chosen’. And having aired his ideas on the subject, he acknowledged that it isn’t always possible to make clear rules and then adhere to them strictly. 

    The Oxford dictionary website also has a go at explaining its inclusion principles – this time by means of an elaborate flowchart which takes you through the various decision points. Having cleared numerous hurdles, the successful word is at last included in the dictionary ‘in due course’. I’m not sure I agree with every stage of this. For example, if the question ‘Is its use limited strictly to one group of users?’ is answered with a ‘Yes’, the word is consigned to a sort of purgatory where its behaviour is monitored for possible future inclusion. But dictionaries routinely include vocabulary typical of specific user-groups – the important thing is to apply an appropriate label to indicate that it is not part of the general language. On the whole, though, the Oxford chart gives a good outline of the key criteria: does the evidence come from a range of sources (what we referred to previously as ‘dispersion’), and does it have ‘a decent history of use’(the longevity argument)?

    The problem is that the approach applied by both Oxford and Merriam-Webster is rooted in the past. It reflects the realities of print-based dictionary publishing – and those days are gone.

    What has changed? First, what we’d call the ‘publishing cycle’. When dictionaries existed mostly as printed books, publishers would produce a new edition every four or five years. They collected new vocabulary as it appeared, but they could take the long view on whether something was worth including. We do things differently now. Consider for example the linguistic fallout of the global financial crisis that began in 2008 – just a year after Macmillan published the second edition of its dictionary. With the dictionary now mainly consulted online, we were able to add important new usages, such as the word credit crunch or the new sense of toxic (when applied to debts) – without having to wait several years. The second big change, which has been gathering pace since the turn of the century, is that the amount of evidence available to us has grown exponentially, thanks to the Web and social media. Thirdly, we’re no longer limited by space constraints. Even the largest printed dictionaries don’t have the infinite amounts of space that online media provide, so they have to be selective. That’s no bad thing: the removal of these limits shouldn’t be a licence to include just anything. But it does allow us to re-think – and broaden – our inclusion policies.

    Above all, older notions about ‘what gets into the dictionary’ reflect the idea of the lexicographer as a gatekeeper, the belief that it is up to us to decide (on behalf of everyone else) which facts about language deserve the special status of  being admitted to a dictionary. This notion of the dictionary having special ‘authority’ (which it confers on the words it includes) is well-established, and still has wide appeal. But it may be incompatible with the priorities and expectations of users of the Web – especially digital natives. If a word is in common use, people expect to find it in their online dictionary, and they won’t be impressed by the argument that it first requires ‘a decent history of use’. For many users, in other words, speed and convenience, getting a useful answer now, may be more important than authority.

    As in so many other areas, one of the impacts of the Web has been a challenge to the old top-down model of one ‘expert’ provider and many passive recipients. It isn’t simply a case of users expecting dictionaries to respond more rapidly to language change – many of them also want to be involved in the compilation process. (Wikipedia is the obvious analogy.) In the final part of this series, we’ll discuss the implications of ‘crowd-sourced’ dictionary content (already a central feature of Wordnik, for example, and of our own Open Dictionary), and we’ll also look at emerging language technologies which might just change everything.

    Email this Post Email this Post


    Comment Here (0)

Recent Comments

  • Posted by Jill Robbins to Trending now! on February 09, 2012 I heard what I think you'd call a collocation the other day on Prairie Home Companion. Garrison Keiller said that Lake Woebegon had 'designer snow' last week - some tasteful sprinkles of snow here and there. I love that expression, and think it's perfect for this winter's paltry snowfalls in the Northeast.
  • Posted by Stan to The fun of new words on February 08, 2012 Mwncïod: It had the same effect on me: Michael's post last week was my first encounter with the verb, but it made complete and immediate sense. Thanks for explaining the insurance ads. I don't think I want to look them up on YouTube!
  • Posted by Mwncïod to The fun of new words on February 07, 2012 Funny, I've never heard of "meercatted" until now but I instantly know what it means. To non-UKers the humorous-cum-tedious TV commercials are predicated on the punning of the insurance website's name 'comparetheMARKET.com' with 'comparetheMEERKAT.com' cue an overly long series of cartoon anthropomorphised meerkat-based nonsense and spin-off promotional merchandise ...meh?
  • Posted by Martin Shovel to The plain English truth about speechwriting and rhetoric on February 07, 2012 Thanks for your comment Simon. I totally agree with you that there’s no conflict between plain English and rhetoric; hence, my conclusion that plain English is a just style choice, among many possible style choices. And I think we would both agree that skilled rhetoricians/speechwriters use a wide variety of styles to get their messages across – i.e. they use the right tool, or tools, for the job in hand. The problem arises when advocates of plain English imply that their ‘style’ of expression reveals something deeper, and truer, about the way language and meaning work. P.S. I would happily recommend your book on speechwriting to anyone with an interest in the subject!
  • Posted by Simon Lancaster to The plain English truth about speechwriting and rhetoric on February 07, 2012 Hi Martin. Interesting post. But there's not a conflict between plain English and rhetoric: plain English is itself a rhetorical device. It conveys the unconscious message, 'it's simple' - even if it isn't. Obama's 'Yes we can', Clinton's 'It's the economy, stupid', Bush's 'read my lips' and so on and so on. Cameron always ends any speech, statement or interview comment with a plain English summary of his message, e.g. 'we get it.' The Ancient rhetoricians - Aristotle, Demetrius et al - all distinguished between a plain style and a stately style in rhetoric. I cover this in my book - Speechwriting: The Expert Guide (published by Robert Hale) - forgive the plug. The Ancient Greeks had fine advice, e.g. 'For the sake of lucidity we must often repeat ourselves. What conciseness gains by being attractive it loses by being obscure. As men running past us often pass unrecognised, so language, too, is not taken in if its movement is rapid.' The true battle lies not between rhetoricians and plain speakers but between pedants and plain speakers. A pedant would never have stood for Obama's 'Yes we can.' They would probably have recommended instead, 'It is perhaps true to say that certain collections of American people are capable of achieving certain things together in certain circumstances, but it is by no means true all of the time, as recent events have proved.' It was the brevity and simplicity of 'Yes we can' that gave it its rhetorical force. Cheers, Simon

  • The fun of new words

    The attention paid to grammar and style can overshadow something equally significant about language: that it is so often and so naturally playful. In our love of puns and Scrabble, riddles and nonsense, rhyming slang and literary experimentation, we see the instinctive inclination to play with words and letters as though they were an abstract [...]

    Read the full article

  • The plain English truth about speechwriting and rhetoric

    The conclusion of our Plain English theme brings a guest post by Martin Shovel, a writer, animator and speechwriter with a special interest in new media and social networking. He writes regularly about language and communication on his own CreativityWorks blog and is a contributor to the Guardian’s Mind Your Language blog. He tweets @MartinShovel. [...]

    Read the full article

  • How do words get into the dictionary? Part 1: the past

    In Kate Atkinson’s recent novel, Started Early, Took My Dog (2010), there’s an exchange between two of the characters. When one of them mentions a large sum of money, we read that Kelly, the other character, ‘suddenly meerkatted to attention’. Does this mean we have a new verb on our hands, to meerkat? Should it be [...]

    Read the full article

  • Love English Awards: the results

    It’s over – voting has closed, the count has finished, and the UN observers have signed off the results. We’ve seen some fantastic blogs and sites in the course of the last couple of months, and now is the moment of truth for our two winners and the four runners-up.    Best Blog There were [...]

    Read the full article

  • Think before you write

    “Short words are best, and old words, when short, are best of all.” Thus, quoting Winston Churchill, began an editorial in The Economist that consisted entirely of one-syllable words. It went on: “AND, not for the first time, he was right: short words are best. Plain they may be, but that is their strength. They [...]

    Read the full article

  • Trending now!

    Humans never outgrow a fascination with new playthings, but after a certain age it is unseemly and unrealistic to expect a steady stream of surprise gifts from doting parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. One consolation for this loss is new words: clever coinages come along all the time to supply our craving for novelty. A [...]

    Read the full article

  • Language and words in the news – 27th January, 2012

    This post contains a selection of links related to language and words in the news. These can be items from the latest news, blog posts or interesting websites related to global English, language change, education in general, and language learning and teaching in particular. Feel free to contact us if you would like to submit [...]

    Read the full article

  • Macmillan Dictionary Love English Awards: update 5 and final

    We’re almost there, with just five more days of voting left. Over 23,000 votes have been cast in the last two months, showing love in abundance for the useful, entertaining (and sometimes a bit weird) English language-loving websites and blogs that are in the running. If you have been nominated, results will be officially announced [...]

    Read the full article

  • Apostrophe apostasy

    Learning a rule or convention in language gives people a secure footing in an area of usage. When the convention is ignored or challenged, this can undermine the pocket of security and offend people’s sense of what is proper and necessary. This might help explain the levels of anxiety and outrage we see when, for [...]

    Read the full article

  • Language and words in the news – 20th January, 2012

    This post contains a selection of links related to language and words in the news. These can be items from the latest news, blog posts or interesting websites related to global English, language change, education in general, and language learning and teaching in particular. Feel free to contact us if you would like to submit [...]

    Read the full article

  • Seen any simpering men lately?

    The Macmillan Dictionary got a mention in The Guardian yesterday, when Jane Martinson pondered the use of the word simper. A fellow journalist (male) had tweeted about a lawyer (female) ‘simpering’ at a witness (male) in the ongoing Leveson Inquiry. (The inquiry was set up in the wake of revelations that News International journalists had [...]

    Read the full article

  • Macmillan Dictionary Love English Awards update 5: vote!

    Nominations for the blogs and websites you love closed on January 15th. Now it’s time for voting. There are excellent sites to choose from. This is how the competition looks so far: World Wide Words winning with 2476 votes so far. English club 1st runner up with 998 votes ESL pod 2nd runner up with  [...]

    Read the full article