{"id":246,"date":"2024-07-23T21:19:54","date_gmt":"2024-07-24T04:19:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/?page_id=246"},"modified":"2024-07-23T21:48:35","modified_gmt":"2024-07-24T04:48:35","slug":"final","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/final\/","title":{"rendered":"Final Project &#8211; The Dictionary as a Technology of Authority"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/3\/3c\/Samuel_Johnson_by_John_Opie.jpg\/591px-Samuel_Johnson_by_John_Opie.jpg\" alt=\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/3\/3c\/Samuel_Johnson_by_John_Opie.jpg\/591px-Samuel_Johnson_by_John_Opie.jpg\" width=\"591\" height=\"721\" \/><\/p>\n<div style=\"font-size: 0.5rem;\">Samuel Johnson, by John Opie (died 1807), given to the National Portrait Gallery, London in 1901<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<audio class=\"wp-audio-shortcode\" id=\"audio-246-1\" preload=\"none\" style=\"width: 100%;\" controls=\"controls\"><source type=\"audio\/mpeg\" src=\"http:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/files\/2024\/07\/podcast2point6.mp3?_=1\" \/><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/files\/2024\/07\/podcast2point6.mp3\">http:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/files\/2024\/07\/podcast2point6.mp3<\/a><\/audio>\n<p><button id=\"show-more-btn\">Full Transcript<\/button><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"more-text\" style=\"display: none;\"><br \/>\nDavid Foster Wallace\u2019s essay, Authority and American Usage, isn\u2019t something I would normally pick up and read (Wallace, 2005). It\u2019s sandwiched amongst his mesmerizing tennis reporting, his famous piece on the ethics of boiling lobsters, and in typical Wallace fashion, is bursting with footnotes. It\u2019s 60 pages exploring the authoritative nature of dictionaries, which doesn\u2019t exactly sound riveting. But trust me, it is. This essay is not our topic of discussion, but it is the perfect introduction.<br \/>\nEarly on, Wallace states \u201cWe regular citizens tend to go to the dictionary for authoritative guidance. Rarely, however, do we ask ourselves who exactly decides what gets in the dictionary or what words or spelling for pronunciations get deemed substandard or incorrect\u201d (Wallace, 2005, p. 75)<br \/>\nWho does get to make these decisions? And what impact do these decisions have? Today, we\u2019re going to look at the dictionary for the technological marvel that it is, by discussing one of its earliest famous implementations and its influence.<br \/>\nSamuel Johnson was a British writer, who in 1755 published a very important dictionary.<br \/>\nJohnson is likely not the character one might expect to be yielding the decision making power of correctness in the English language. He did not come from aristocracy, nor was he hand-selected by the monarchy. Johnson grew up relatively poor, the son of a bookshop owner. Though he was a voracious reader, he was not a notable academic. He left Pembroke College after 13 months due to financial constraints and his father\u2019s declining health. (Hitchings, 2005, p.25) He eventually moved to London in search of opportunity, and quickly fell in love with the city.<br \/>\nHe made a living writing for magazines, publishing biographies, and cataloguing book collections (Hitchings, 2005, p. 48).<br \/>\nHis work brought him to the attention of London\u2019s book sellers, who had a request &#8211; that he \u201ccompile a modern, authoritative English dictionary\u201d (Hitchings, 2005, p. 49; Lynch, 2020). Historian Henry Hitchings contextualizes this period in English history as one of institutionalization, codification, and national monuments. (Alwyn &amp; Kerr, 2009) The cataloguing and institutionalization of the English language was a logical next step.<br \/>\nThis certainly wasn\u2019t the first dictionary, let alone the first English dictionary. In fact, it wasn\u2019t the first of anything. Many writers before him had compiled words with accompanying quotations and guidelines (Lynch, 2020, p. 143). It might be more appropriate though, to describe it as the best. In his book Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography, Sidney Landau describes Johnson\u2019s achievement not through his innovation, but through his \u201cskillful and original execution\u201d (Landau, 1984). In comparison to early dictionaries, Johnson\u2019s work was expertly organized, accurate, and provided an accessible sense into the application of each word.<br \/>\nHis knack for order, organization, and research may have evolved from his time spent cataloguing book collections &#8211; and now he had the opportunity to apply it to a much more grand endeavour.<br \/>\nThe final result was a 42773 entry compendium of the English language, complete with not only definitions, but notes, descriptions and quotations. (Hitchings, 2005; Lynch, 2020) It wasn\u2019t just a spelling reference, but a readable and insightful book that brought lexicography to the forefront of English culture. Lexicography being the art of the dictionary.<br \/>\nTo put into perspective what earlier dictionaries were like, here is the definition for Consolation from Robert Cowdrey\u2019s Table Alphabeticall from 1604, regarded as the first English dictionary: Consolation &#8211; comfort (Cawdrey, 1966; ElevenLabs, 2024).<br \/>\nAnd here is Johnson\u2019s definitions: Consolation: Comfort; alleviation of misery; such alleviation as is produced by partial remedies. We that were in the jaws of death, were now brought into a place where we found nothing but consolations.<br \/>\nBacon.<br \/>\nAgainst such cruelties,<br \/>\nWith inward consolations recompens\u2019d;<br \/>\nAnd oft supported so, as shall amaze<br \/>\nTheir proudest persecutors.<br \/>\nMilton\u2019s Paradise Lost, b. xii.<br \/>\nLet the righteous persevere with patience, supported with this consolation, that their labour shall not be in vain.<br \/>\nRogers (Johnson, 1755; ElevenLabs, 2024).<br \/>\nAs you can see, Johnson\u2019s presentation is much more poetic, not only his definition, but his selected quotations. He brought artistry to what was a bland reference. \u201cGo read a dictionary\u201d is a tame elementary school insult, but in Johnson\u2019s time it wouldn\u2019t have been so absurd. This newfound approach would, by the 1800s, propel Johnson\u2019s dictionary to a state of ubiquity. It\u2019s said that Johnson\u2019s dictionary was such a widespread reference, that one might ask for the dictionary at someone\u2019s house with the same expectation one might ask for the bible. (Hitchings, 2005)<br \/>\nWith such a wide and eager audience, it\u2019s important to consider the effects Johnson\u2019s dictionary would have.<br \/>\nYou might be thinking, what does this have to do with David foster Wallace, so let\u2019s circle back. Much of his essay, Authority and American Usage, discusses descriptivism vs prescriptivism. Descriptivism is an approach to grammar that aims to capture language as it is being used by its speakers on a daily basis objectively. Meanwhile, prescriptivism is more conservative, asserting that there is a correct and incorrect way of using language, and those rules should be documented, if not abided by. (Curzan, 2014)<br \/>\nThe reality is that this dichotomy operates on a spectrum. Not every dictionary is urban dictionary, nor does it have to be the McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar and Usage.<br \/>\nSo where did Johnson stand? Prior to beginning work on his dictionary, Johnson published \u201cThe Plan of an English Dictionary\u201d in 1747, a manifesto for the enormous undertaking he was to undergo. He concludes with this \u201cThis, my Lord, is my idea of an English dictionary, a dictionary by which the pronunciation of our language may be fixed, and its attainment facilitated; by which its purity may be preserved, its use ascertained, and its duration lengthened\u201d (Johnson, 1747; ElevenLabs, 2024). Johnson exhibited a clear moral conservatism regarding language, and wanted to ensure its protection (Gouw &amp; Potgieter, 2020). After the 9 year endeavour though, Johnson\u2019s introduction to the Dictionary carried a slightly more nuanced view (Johnson, 1755). It seems that during his immense undertaking, he began to realize the futility of language purity.<br \/>\nDespite his evolving views, one of the most remarkable parts Johnson\u2019s dictionary is that, save for assistant scribes who performed some of the arduous copying, Johnson performed the curation single-handedly (Stamper, 2020). This provided him with unprecedented authority in dictating its use and correctness. Johnson got his words from a variety of sources, including other dictionaries and a mountain of literature (Hitchings, 2005). This collection process could be seen as an inherently descriptive practice, as he was capturing the language as it was being used, or at least written. However, the words Johnson chose to include\u2014and the manner in which he included them\u2014had prescriptive implications. Dr. Smith Rumsey\u2019s lecture \u201cWhat can we afford to lose\u201d comes to mind here, equally influential as the words Johnson included in his dictionary are those he chose to exclude (Brown University, 2017).<br \/>\nJohnson\u2019s word selection and definitions were rife with his personal and cultural biases. Given his conservative attitude towards English, it comes as no surprise that he omitted commonly imported French words. Included in the dictionary is the verb, \u201cto Frenchify: to infect with the manner of France; to make a coxcomb.\u201d (Johnson, 1755).<br \/>\nWords that were included were frequently the subject of Johnson\u2019s explicitly stated judgement. He utilized usage labels to mark words as \u2018low\u2019, \u2018barbarous\u2019, \u2018vulgar\u2019, or \u2018cant\u2019 (Hudson, 1998). For example, he defines the word width as \u201cBreadth, wideness. A low word\u201d. \u201cTo Dumbfound. To confuse; to strike dumb. A low phrase\u201d. He also showed favour to some words, such as \u201cUltimity: The last stage the last consequence. A word very convenient, but not in use.\u201d Not in use! You have to credit Johnson, he was upfront about his biases. Sexism and patriarchal themes are also evident throughout Johnson\u2019s definitions and quotation selections. The vast majority of his sources being from male writers, and many of his definitions referring to women served only to reinforce traditional gender roles (Hitchings, 2005). These are just a few examples of how Johnson\u2019s small choices impact the language present in his dictionary.<br \/>\nIt\u2019s clear that Johnson\u2019s dictionary arrived at a key time in English history, a time of cultural pride and preservation. As we\u2019ve seen, its creation was an enormous undertaking, and despite his unconventional path, quirks, and biases, Samuel Johnson ended up being an incredibly successful curator. So what effect did Johnson\u2019s dictionary have?<br \/>\nThere are two schools of thought, the first, argued by historian John Barrell, is that Johnson\u2019s dictionary codified English as spoken by polite society, or the elite, with the expectation that the rest of the country was incorrect and due to conform. Barrell sees Johnson\u2019s prescriptivism as a direct reflection of his political leanings &#8211; conservative and intensely devoted to custom. He views Johnson\u2019s various usage labels as rejections of working-class language, and a wholehearted embrace of the English elite. In doing so, it is implied that Johnson\u2019s dictionary served to oppress working-class English people and culture in the pursuit of language homogenization.<br \/>\nThe other side of the coin, presented by UBC historian Nicholas Hudson, is that Johnson himself was no member of the elite, and had little concern for codifying their linguistics. He argues that Johnson\u2019s dictionary was, and I quote, \u201cremarkable for its broad inclusiveness and, frequently, its defiance of polite standards\u201d, and thus not a mere document of pandering to polite society, but a careful preservation of the English language as it existed at the time. Instead, he proposes that Johnson saw himself as beholden to truth and the science of lexicography, aiming to document, preserve, and bring order to English. Ultimately, he concludes that Johnson\u2019s dictionary was a disappointment to the upper echelons of English society.<br \/>\nWhile the dictionaries subservience to certain classes is debated, it is undeniable that it was used as an instrument of English imperialism. An abridged copy of Johnson\u2019s Dictionary was spread throughout British colonies, such as Australia and New Zealand, where they were used in classrooms (Hitchings, 2005). The dictionary was also enormously influential in the United States, where it fuelled a conflict of cultural identity in the newly independent nation. One looking towards its foundations, through Joseph Worcester\u2019s dictionaries, and one aiming to distinguish itself as a new nation, as seen through Webster\u2019s dictionaries. Both built atop of Johnson\u2019s foundation. Webster ultimately succeeded, and is the reason American\u2019s spell colour without a u, and traveler with only one L. (Hitchings, 2005)<br \/>\nThe popularity of Johnson\u2019s dictionary cemented it as a reference for the common English household. [simon Winchester oed] It became the template for subsequently influential English dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster\u2019s dictionary, as well as dictionaries in other languages . I hope this podcast has demonstrated how what many of us perceive to be a relatively benign and simple technology, the dictionary, can have vast implications on questions of preservation, culture, and authority. To conclude, we\u2019ll finish with a relevant quote from Wallace\u2019s essay Authority and American Usage. \u201cThe lexicographer\u2019s challenge now is to be not just accurate and comprehensive but credible. That in the absence of unquestioned, capita-A Authority in language, the reader must now be moved or persuaded to grant a dictionary its authority, freely and for what appear to be good reasons.\u201d<br \/>\nThough this isn\u2019t in reference to Samuel Johnson, I think it captures perfectly what an incredibly feat it was for such an unlikely character to not only lay the foundations of the dictionary as we know it today, but to make people trust it as well.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>This podcast features the track: Palus Solitaria by Jangwa <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY 4.0<\/a><\/p>\n<h4>References<\/h4>\n<p>Alwyn, R. (Director &amp; Writer), &amp; Kerr, P. (Producer). (2009, September 19). Samuel Johnson: The Dictionary Man [TV broadcast]. BBC Four.<\/p>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\">Barrell, J. (1983). <i>English literature in history, 1730-80: An equal, wide survey<\/i>. New York\u202f: St. Martin\u2019s Press. <a href=\"http:\/\/archive.org\/details\/englishliteratur0000barr\">http:\/\/archive.org\/details\/englishliteratur0000barr<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Brown University (Director). (2017, July 11). Abby Smith Rumsey: \u201cDigital Memory: What Can We Afford to Lose?\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=FBrahqg9ZMc\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=FBrahqg9ZMc<\/a><\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\">Boswell, J. (2006). <em>Life of Johnson<\/em> (C. G. Osgood, Ed.). Project Gutenberg. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/ebooks\/1564\">http:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/ebooks\/1564<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Cawdrey, R. (1966). <em>A table alphabeticall<\/em> (R. A. Peters, Ed.). Scholars&#8217; Facsimiles &amp; Reprints. (Original work published 1604). Electronic text edited by R. G. Siemens, Department of English, University of British Columbia, 1994.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\">Curzan, A. (Ed.). (2014). Prescriptivism\u2019s umbrella: Standards, style, restoration, and political intervention. In <i>Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History<\/i> (pp. 12\u201340). Cambridge University Press. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/CBO9781139107327.002\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/CBO9781139107327.002<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>ElevenLabs. (2024). <em>Speech Synthesis<\/em> [AI voiceover tool]. https:\/\/elevenlabs.io<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\">Gouws, R. H., &amp; Potgieter, L. (2010). Does Johnson\u2019s Prescriptive Approach Still Have a Role to Play in Modern-Day Dictionaries? <i>Lexikos<\/i>, <i>20<\/i>, 234\u2013247. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5788\/20-0-141\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5788\/20-0-141<\/a><\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\">Hingston, S. (2012, April 2). The English Cowpath: Prescriptivism and Descriptivism in the 18th Century. <i>The English Cowpath<\/i>. <a href=\"http:\/\/englishcowpath.blogspot.com\/2012\/04\/prescriptivism-and-descriptivism-in.html\">http:\/\/englishcowpath.blogspot.com\/2012\/04\/prescriptivism-and-descriptivism-in.html<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Hitchings, H. (2005). <em>Defining the world: The extraordinary story of Dr. Johnson&#8217;s dictionary<\/em>. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Hitchings, H. (2011). <em>The language wars: A history of proper English<\/em>. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\">Hudson, N. (1998). Johnson\u2019s \u201cDictionary\u201d and the Politics of \u201cStandard English.\u201d <i>The Yearbook of English Studies<\/i>, <i>28<\/i>, 77\u201393. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/3508757\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/3508757<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Johnson, S. (1747). <em>The plan of an English dictionary<\/em>. (J. Lynch, Ed.). Retrieved from <a href=\"https:\/\/jacklynch.net\/Texts\/plan.html\">https:\/\/jacklynch.net\/Texts\/plan.html<\/a><\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Johnson, S. (1755, 1773). <em>A dictionary of the English language<\/em> (B. R. Young, J. Lynch, W. Dorner, A. L. Giroux, C. F. Mathes, &amp; A. Moreshead, Eds.). Retrieved from <a href=\"https:\/\/johnsonsdictionaryonline.com\">https:\/\/johnsonsdictionaryonline.com<\/a><\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Landau, S. I. (1984). <em>Dictionaries: The art and craft of lexicography<\/em>. Scribner. Retrieved from <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/dictionaries00sidn\">https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/dictionaries00sidn<\/a><\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\">Lynch, J. (2020). Samuel Johnson and the \u2018First English Dictionary.\u2019 In S. Ogilvie (Ed.), <i>The Cambridge Companion to English Dictionaries<\/i> (pp. 142\u2013154). Cambridge University Press. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781108553780.013\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781108553780.013<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\">Stamper, K. (2020). How a Word Gets into an English Dictionary. In S. Ogilvie (Ed.), <i>The Cambridge Companion to English Dictionaries<\/i> (1st ed., pp. 7\u201317). Cambridge University Press. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781108553780.003\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781108553780.003<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Wallace, D. F. (2005). Authority and American usage. In <em>Consider the lobster and other essays<\/em> (pp. 66-127). Little, Brown, and Company.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"csl-bib-body\">\n<div class=\"csl-entry\"><i>What Samuel Johnson Really Did<\/i>. (n.d.). The National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved July 10, 2024, from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.neh.gov\/humanities\/2009\/septemberoctober\/feature\/what-samuel-johnson-really-did\">https:\/\/www.neh.gov\/humanities\/2009\/septemberoctober\/feature\/what-samuel-johnson-really-did<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><script>\n        document.getElementById('show-more-btn').addEventListener('click', function() {\n            var moreText = document.querySelector('.more-text');\n            if (moreText.style.display === 'none') {\n                moreText.style.display = 'inline';\n                this.textContent = 'Hide Transcript';\n            } else {\n                moreText.style.display = 'none';\n                this.textContent = 'Full Transcript';\n            }\n        });\n    <\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Samuel Johnson, by John Opie (died 1807), given to the National Portrait Gallery, London in 1901 Full Transcript David Foster Wallace\u2019s essay, Authority and American Usage, isn\u2019t something I would normally pick up and read (Wallace, 2005). It\u2019s sandwiched amongst his mesmerizing tennis reporting, his famous piece on the ethics of boiling lobsters, and in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":82881,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-246","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/246","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/82881"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/246\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":279,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/246\/revisions\/279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/duncman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}