The American Dialect Society

The Future of Lexicography Dictionaries of English: Prospects for the Record of Our Language by Richard W. Bailey Review by: Craig M. Carver American Speech, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 173-178 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/455538 . Accessed: 15/10/2012 08:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Dialect Society and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Speech.

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWS
REFERENCES

173

64: Speech Algeo,John, and Adele Algeo. 1989. "Among the New Words." American 150-61. Barrere, Albert, and Charles G. Leland. 1889-90. A Dictionary Slang,Jargon,and of Cant. 2 vols. London: Ballantyne. Berrey, Lester V., and Melvin Van den Bark. 1953. TheAmericanThesaurus Slang. of 2nd ed. New York: Crowell. DAS. Wentworth and Flexner (1975). DSUE. Partridge (1984). Farmer, John S., and W. E. Henley 1890-1904. Slangand ItsAnalogs. 7 vols. London and Edinburgh: n.p. Rpt. Krau, 1974. Flexner, Stuart Berg. 1982. Listeningto America.New York: Simon and Schuster. . 1976. I HearAmericaTalking. New York:Van Nostrand. Hotten,John Camden. 1859. TheSlangDictionary.London. Partridge, Eric. 1984. A Dictionary Slangand UnconventionalEnglish. ed. Ed. by 8th of Paul Beale. New York: Macmillan. Sledd, James. 1978. "WhatAre We Going to Do About It Now That We're Number One?" American 53: 171-98. Speech Middle Village, NY:Jonathan David. Spears, Richard A. 1981. Slangand Euphemism. Wentworth, Harold, and Stuart Berg Flexner. 1975. Dictionary American of Slang. 2nd ed. New York: Crowell.

THE FUTURE OF LEXICOGRAPHY Dictionaries of English: Prospects for the Record of Our Language. Edited by Richard W. Bailey. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1987. Pp. 161. M. Reviewed by CRAIG CARVER, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and DARE Even though the nine essays in this collection are diverse in their specific topics-as one would expect from papers originally presented at a colloall to one degree or another deal with quium on English lexicography-they the future of English lexicography, giving the collection remarkable unity. Many of the essays give a critique of traditional dictionaries and speculate on improvements; and many address the revolution taking place in lexicography, the direct outcome of advances in information technology. It is fitting that the first essay, written by Robert Burchfield, be a valediction, both a personal and symbolic farewell to the OED, its methods, its architecture, and its era, the completed four volume Supplement being the capstone. His essay is a very readable, candid history-in-miniature of the final phase of the OED and the beginnings of the Supplement. Like James Murray, Burchfield ran into problems during the editing of the Supplement that often stemmed from policy decisions. Two policies in particular would have appalled Murray: the"extended and expanded" inclu-

174

AMERICAN SPEECH65.2 (1990)

sion of "obvious" attributive uses, and the more controversial policy of including the "language of great writers ... even once-only uses." This latter grew out of Burchfield's own literaryapproach to the study of English during his Oxford days and is perhaps one of the changes, for better or worse, that he will be most remembered for. It is a brave lexicographer indeed who unflinchingly includes the words from, say,James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. is Inevitablythe Supplement a creature very different from the OEDdespite the strict adherence to the OED'sformal policies. It may look like "the tail" belongs "to the animal to which it is attached," but the animal is thoroughly "aproduct of the Victorian and Edwardian period." Murraycould not have dreamed of including words from a world of computers, drugs, and nuclear use weapons. Two other differences Burchfield notes are the Supplement's of one quotation per decade rather than per century, and the inclusion of sexual vocabulary. To this might be added the greater inclusion of the varieties of world English, something we might expect from a New Zealand editor-in-chief. Just as Burchfield shows some of the differences between the OEDand the Frederic Cassidyhighlights some of the differences between the Supplement, OEDand the Dictionary American of RegionalEnglish.His essay, written with a certain verve, is essentially an informal introduction to DARE,treating principles of inclusion/exclusion, labeling, format, and DARE's use of the computer. Cassidyclaims, "Asto use of computers, DAREis something of a pioneer." Indeed, without a computer the 2.5 million fieldwork responses could not have been edited and mapped, at least within a reasonable budget and a single lifetime. This use of the computer was developed early in the project (the early 1970s) and has held DARE in good stead. Cassidy nonetheless looks at the computerization of lexicography with a certain amount of distrust and discomfort. For him the cursor blinks "accusingly." Although he concedes that from "huge data banks, assuming that the computers are not 'down,' we should be able to get a great deal of information," he doesn't really trust them, because this "information ... will have to be taken somewhat on faith. We will not know who takes the responsibility of accuracy, fullness, up-to-dateness of the answers given us." But users of dictionaries have alwayshad to take them on "faith";moreover, there is no reason to presume that electronic dictionaries will be any more anonymously or irresponsibly written than printed ones. This is made very clear in E.S.C. Weiner's essay, which shows the thoughtful, detailed planning that is going into the computerization of the New OED. The first task in its computerization has been the establishment of an in encoded database of the OEDand the Supplement preparation for the integration of the two texts. Weiner goes into exquisite detail on the steps

REVIEWS

175

involved, complete with an appendix of sample texts illustrating the transitional stages in the integration. The second major task is the revision and updating of the dictionary, which will probably be made available in electronic form, perhaps on compact disks. In the creation of the New OEDdatabase the OEDis once again breaking new ground, virtuallyredefining dictionary.It is as big a quantum leap from the originally published OEDas the OEDwas from Robert Cawdrey'sA Table Not only will this new kind of dictionary-as-databasebe much Alphabeticall. more accessible, giving more and new kinds of information, it could have moving illustrations, enlargeable maps, and rotatable diagrams, as well as voice synthesis to supplement the phonetic transcriptions. T. F. Hoad and Jufrgen Schafer offer a more microscopic look at the effects of the revolution in dictionary writing and the possibilities for the to future. Hoad shows how the new Microfiche Concordance OldEnglishcan be the basis for establishing the geographical distribution, register, and history of many Old English words. By considering the nature and classes of text (poetic, ecclesiastical, scientific, etc.) in which a given word occurs, it is possible to make better-informed conclusions about word-formation. He illustrates this with extended discussions of the suffixes -lic/-lyand -ish.Such information, Hoad convincingly argues, should be incorporated into future dictionaries or published separately as a kind of supplement, as in the case of the MiddleEnglishDictionary. Schafer's essay shows how the OEDfails to deal adequately with Early Modern English and how technology can make a dictionary of this specialized period a possibility. Because the OEDis a "synchronicdictionary whose primary aim is to present contemporary English against a historical background," the words it includes reflect their "frequency and stylistic status at the moment of compilation." But most users of the dictionary expect precisely this-that a dictionary be "up-to-date." Schifer, however, is arguing from the scholar's point of view. For him, the OED'sapproach "necessarily distorts the historical documentation." This distortion was to be corrected by the EarlyModern EnglishDictionary, first proposed by William Craigie, but its scope has to date overwhelmed every attempt to realize it. Things have changed, however, since C. C. Fries grappled with the practicalities of the EMED.Schifer, like many other farsighted lexicographers, is convinced that by means of "modern technology"-a combination of computer storage, optical scanners, microfiche, and selective book publication-the project can be completed. Richard Allsopp's rather jargon-clogged essay is concerned with the inherent difficulties of defining words for the Dictionary Caribbean of English and Usage(DCEU).Because Caribbean English (CE) has such a short written

176

SPEECH AMERICAN 65.2 (1990)

history, this is necessarily a "fieldworkdictionary, seeking analytical insights by asking people." In part, Allsopp is interested in summarizing the attitudes of the speakers towardstheir speech in "advisory notes," which, he claims, are necessary because of the extreme "culturalinsecurity of CE speakers." Thus, a "strictly descriptive Caribbean lexicography would be regarded as unhelpful";accordingly, he calls for a dictionary that is "unashamedlyprescriptive." But is it the province of dictionaries to rehabilitate speakers' "cultural insecurity"? Is it even reasonable to think that dictionaries can do so? Prescriptivityis so fraught with political implications (who is it, after all, that sets the standards of acceptability if not those with economic and political power?) that it behooves lexicographers of third-world speech to stay close to the clean objectivity of a descriptive approach. To label a word "antiformal" (as if it were AGAINST standard CE) or "unacceptable" (ominously symbolized in DCEUwithan X) is a political statement. If these labels are based on a sample of informants then it is better to present that evidence on its own basis and let users draw their own conclusions. Allsopp takes issue with the "institutionalized bonds forged by historical lexicography," but he chooses to dissent on a trivialpoint: reversing the traditional order of definition and citations, he offers as illustration two and a half pages of CE dictionary entries but must resort to "aheavier typeface for definitions than for citations" for the entries to even approach being readable. And for what reason should this particular institutional bond be broken? The bestAllsopp offers is that it shows directly the "induction in the defining process"because premises (the citations) precede the induced generalization (the definition). But definitions are inductively derived regardless of whether or not they follow or precede citations. And what user is going to be concerned about the inductive process, anyway?Citations in the traditional order illustrate the definition and amplify it with particularityand thus have a subordinate place-following the definition. This is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."Allsopp's closing cride coeur("alas! concerning ") on these "bonds"by publishers and public sounds hollow. the insistence A. J. Aitken's contribution is a measured, even leisurely, examination of the status of Scottish English in English lexicography-a reminder that Scottish English is alive and well and that national varieties of English must not be neglected. Even though he apparently sets out to show how Scottish English is being neglected in popular dictionaries, his investigation is unbiased enough to refute at least in part his own assumptions about the "extinction of Scotland." His investigative scheme divides selected test words and phrases into eleven categories, including "covert Scotticisms," "names for inhabitants," "common idioms and sayings,"and "culturalScotticisms." Third NewInternational and Webster's The Chambers Twentieth Dictionary Century

REVIEWS

177

(WNID3)scored the best of the five dictionaries he tested, though Dictionary criticizes WNID3 displaying "excessivecaution or timidity in labelfor Aitken ing" Scotticisms. Aitken levels his most cogent criticism at the handling of pronunciations. "None of the British dictionaries are capable of representing certain essential phoneme distinctions of Scottish English," indicative of "the southeast England bias of these dictionaries." It is too much to expect a general English dictionary to include more than a cursory treatment of any particular dialectal or national variety, as Aitken essentially concedes when he recommends that serious Scottish dictionary Scots users should avail themselves of the Concise Dictionary.Beyond this he proposes that "a composite dictionary of national and regional varieties of English" be written as a kind of supplement to "acommon core dictionary" of English. As Aitken, Hartmann, and Bailey show in their essaysin this book, the increasing failure of general dictionaries to cover the language adequately is becoming acute. Aitken's proposal for a composite dictionary is a viable prospect for a more complete and accessible record of the language. R. R. K. Hartmann's contribution shifts the focus of the book from specific dictionaries to the users of dictionaries, their needs and typology. In the past this approach in lexicography has been primarily the domain of marketing research. Hartmann's survey clearly shows that the user's perspective is now also a serious scholarly concern and that even greater efforts should be made in empirical research in this field. Users' needs are dynamic: different users approach dictionaries in very different ways, the approach in part varying "bysuch factors as age, provenance, and education." Moreover, users' needs change over time. Hence, he calls for more "dynamicobservations of what real users do with real dictionaries in real situations of communicative deficit." Although Hartmann's essay is intended primarilyas a summary of this research to date, one would like to see how such research is more than a marketing ploy or an intellectual exercise, and how it would affect the form of a dictionary. Given the dynamic and variable nature of user typology, the static book form will necessarily be inadequate. Although he doesn't say so, it would seem that he is calling for the flexibility provided by computerized dictionaries, where the changing and widely varying needs of users can be met. The problem of "successfulconsultation," for example, could be easily solved by the simple but powerful searching capacity of the computer. But even computerization will require more research into user needs. Bailey is also concerned with the user's needs and the failure of current in dictionaries to meet them. His survey of bonnyto boo-boo 22 dictionaries shows that there is wildly varying coverage of the possible 115 total words in this "microsection of the English vocabulary." The OED,for example, con-

178

65.2 (1990) AMERICAN SPEECH

tains only 23 of the 115, while WNID3,which has the best coverage of any single dictionary, weighs in with a mere 27 words. This lack of breadth is counterpoint to the shallowness of coverage, which Bailey illustrates by comparing the treatment of shackin 32 dictionaries. Only a few cover the extended sense 'room or roomlike structure'. Moreover, it is evident that many of the dictionaries derive their definitions from prior dictionaries. The title of Bailey's essayalludes to Richard Chenevix Trench's influential lectures to the Philological Society, "On Some Deficiencies in Our English Dictionaries," which was the catalyst for the inception of the OED. Bailey's hope is that his own essay will be a call for a "newplan for English lexicography" that would rectify the "discontiguities" in English dictionaries. His version of the plan is a sweeping one. It would do awaywith the "artificial" distinction between "lexical"and "encyclopedic"information and would be an "informationresource" that could include virtuallyevery type of alphabetizable information, including "gazetteers,biographical dictionaries, atlases, postal-code directories," and just short of the kitchen sink, "telephone listings." This can be possible, of course, only with "the intelligent application of new information technology." Dictionaries Englishis generally scholarly in tone and point of view and of will appeal primarily to lexicographers and students of lexicography. However, it is not so esoteric as to be inaccessible to the interested general reader. One would have liked coverage of other dictionary projects, but the structure of such a book is inevitably controlled by the papers submitted to the colloquium. Perhaps its greatest contribution is to stimulate new thought about the future of dictionaries in light of technology and the varying needs of users and to fuel the lexicographical revolution now in progress. This it does admirably.

LINGUISTICEVOLUTION Language in Competition:Dominance, Diversity, and Decline. By Ronald Wardhaugh. The Language Library. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987. Pp. viii + 280. Reviewed by Frank Nuessel, University Louisville of Linguistic Darwinism is the central theme of Wardhaugh's latest volume. In this regard, the author states the following (vii): This book is about language spread-or dominance-and about variouslanin guagesthathavefound themselves competitionas a resultof thatspread.Dealing treatment.In order witheveryaspectof sucha topicwould requirean encyclopedic