WWJD? (What Would [Sam] Johnson Do?): Legit Words From "Spectacular" to "Craptacular"

Happy Bday, Sam J.

It's pretty spectacular to get media attention for your 300th birthday. Samuel Johnson, who famously defined "lexicographer," in part, as a "harmless drudge," seemingly putting down his own major life's work, was still a (minor) media celebrity on his tercentenary this month-- September 18.

From other definitions in Johnson's path-breaking 1755 dictionary, it's clear he was not overly burdened with modesty. But he probably would not have foreseen such long-lasting recognition. He certainly could not have foreseen the spectacular twists and turns roiling dictionary-making today. How, one wonders, would he react to the radically new options?

National Public Radio, for example, celebrated Johnson's birthday with a lively story on historical changes in the standards for including and defining words, set by the leading English dictionaries on both sides of "the pond." (www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/09/18/06) [The story is called, I might possessively note: "Defining Moments"]

Talking Out of School- But the reporter, Mike Vuolo, focused on what now, almost 50 years later, seems to be a quaint furor -- the 1961 Third Edition of Merriam-Webster's "New International Dictionary." What caused widespread indignation at the time? M-W's Third included slang, curse words and, in general, words, spellings, and definitions that were in common use, instead of limiting the contents to the "standard" (some might say, "elitist") form of language as taught in schools.

Letting Common Users In? Reporter Vuolo saw the irony in that edition's now being viewed as a hoary authority. And he began to pry open the door on the aspect of 21st century dictionary-making that our hero Sam Johnson would find most bewildering -- the many ways that "common" users are getting involved in the dictionary-making process.

Johnson had some help in his innovation of documenting many entries with literary quotations, but basically his dictionary was a massive one-man operation. Having users supply new words or create definitions would have seemed beyond the pale.

NPR's Vuolo interviewed editor-lexicographers of two avant-garde entrants in the dictionary field which do reach beyond the pale and accept user-suggested entries:

• Open Dictionary by Merriam-Webster (www3.merriamwebster.com/opendictionary)
• Wordnik -- a truly innovative venture.(www.wordnik.com)

Vuolo flung a zinger of a word --"craptacular" -- at the editor-lexicographers to see how inclusive their user-aided products really were. He had first encountered the term last year, in a Wall Street Journal reporter's description of the emerging financial free-fall. Reputable source, but was that really a word? In Wordnik? Yes, for sure. Open Dictionary? Yes, again. Merriam-Webster's Third, online edition? No way.

User-involvement vs. User-control. We'll be following Wordnik and Open Dictionary from a special perspective: Their role in the changing social structure of the practices, and the profession, involved in formal defining. For now, the point is that both those innovating dictionaries still are controlled by very young versions of Sam Johnson, i.e., lexicographers.

Maybe because it would have been ungracious on Johnson's B-day, NPR didn't even mention the truly avant avant-garde in dictionaries -- those that are user-controlled.

• Urban Dictionary (www.urbandictionary.com), and
• Wiktionary ( www.wiktionary.org)

Of course, "craptacular" appears in both -- in fact, with 50 definitions in Urban, some of them being, well, quite craptacular.

And, Yes, "Bday" is a Dictionary Word --at least it is in user-controlled Wiktionary and Urban, but not yet in "harmless drudge-controlled" Open Dictionary and Wordnik.

Strange [Definitions of] Behavior

A Different Take on “Defining Experiences”

“Defining experiences” can be ordinary. The usual take on that term is “life-changing events”, but I’m referring to the unnoticed occasions in a typical day when we weave definitions into conversations. Those informal definitions are like grease that keeps social gears shifting smoothly.

Sure, lots of social behavior happens smoothly without defining either the terms of the relationship, or the terms that the behavior is about. You and I can go shopping without defining what shopping is, and without defining whether we are BFF (Best Friends Forever) or just acquaintances who enjoy an outing to Target. (But if you show up seeking Saks and I was targeting Target, we may need to stop and define what shopping means.)

Science versus “Daily Life”

However, defining is crucially important in some specialized arenas, especially the Sciences -- or so we’ve come to believe. Science progresses because researchers can build on each others’ findings, and to do that they must have agreed-upon technical definitions of the key things they are measuring, right? Not necessarily.

Man Bites Dog? Earlier this summer—July 21, 2009 to be precise -- the New York Times ran what amounts to a Science section version of the model mock news story: “Man Bites Dog!” Reporter Natalie Angier got the scoop on the shocking revelation that Behavioral Biologists do not agree on a definition of a truly central term in their specialty: the word is “behavior.” Angier drew her facts from a study in the July 2009 issue of the journal Animal Behaviour, whose main conclusions were:

“biologists don't agree with one another on what a behavior is;”

Indeed, the study compared biologists’ responses in two parts of the surveys they filled out, and found that:

“biologists don't agree with themselves on what a behavior is”! {italics added)

This definitional disarray in a science specialty seems more serious than common differences in daily-life definitions. Who got the idea in the first place to do this bit of investigative research? Was it a renowned scholar secure enough in his or her career to raise this professionally sensitive issue? Surprisingly, no.

The Emperor Has No Clothes? The story fulfilled another model for media interest, since if you recall, it was a naïve and therefore painfully honest little boy who proclaimed the Emperor’s nakedness. Angier saw the irony in noting who sparked the study that revealed the definitional hairy situation that all those Behavioral Biologists were parading around in.

It was a graduate student, Daniel Levitis, who innocently asked his professor for a good technical definition of “behavior.” Finding a mish-mash of definitions when he searched textbooks and glossaries of research reports, Levitis went on to conduct a survey of about 175 researchers, and to be the lead author of the journal article (Levitis DA, Lidicker, Jr WZ, & Freund G, “Behavioural biologists do not agree on what constitutes behaviour.)”

Defining terms: For What, By Whom?

So, we are left wondering: Are shared definitions really needed for cumulative research? Might definitions serve other, more social, functions even in academic Science? Put better, under what conditions are definitions really needed?

Or are definitions in science, as in daily life, at least in part a way that some people pull symbolic power plays over others in attributing meanings, and having their definitions gain wider acceptance? Hot-button questions like those argue for looking more closely at “defining experiences.”

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

What's the Matter of Dictionaries?

Yes, I mean "the Matter of...," not "the Matter with..."

Setting aside momentarily the rich play on words offered by "matter" (18 senses of the word appear in one dictionary I consulted), today's theme picks up the thread from July 24's post [Use link in the left margin].

There I highlighted a matter of change which is also a change of matter (i.e., material) -- the surging shift of dictionaries from book to electronic form.

For some people, it is also a change that matters negatively; they bemoan loss of the tactile way they interacted with dictionaries.

Quite the opposite for others. To them, the less solid the material composition, the more solid the advantages they see for using dictionaries -- more flexibility, timelier definitions, more words and information about them, speedier definition-searches -- to name a few.

Which camp are you in?

Reconsidering: Does Art indeed have the last word?

Mainly, this post picks up where July 24th left off, peering deeper into the provocative perspective on the change of matter that artist Brian Dettmer's "book sculpting" reveals.

Yes, the image above (presented courtesy of the artist. Thanks, Brian), titled "Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Ed." is a tantalizing example of his large and growing output.

(Visit www.briandettmer.com for more images and some galleries where you can see the real thing, if you are geographically lucky; online just doesn't cut it for fully experiencing such intricately crafted artwork.)

Previously I wrote "Art has the last word," referring to Dettmer’s sculptures as vivid visual messages that "use" language and books, but not in any conventional linear sense.

Since then I've read commentary by Brian, using language conventionally to explain his intended meanings in creating his sculptures. The explanations enrich my experience of the art -- so, does language really have the "last word"? The field of semiotics is the study of meaning, in which language is just a part: body language, clothing style, tone of voice, other symbols -- all convey meaning. But language is “privileged” -- ultimately we can share our comprehension of the non-verbal, whether art or personal presentation, only through language.

Language – Images – Information –Raw materials: A Media Mash-up?

Closing thoughts to ponder, from Dettmer’s May 2008 interview in Lodown Magazine (www.lodownmagazine.com)

“Images can work as words or phrases and language can work as an image or picture.”

And:

“Information is the natural material of our time and the analog shells can be explored like stone, or approached like their original wooden origin. There is a sensual, physical, tactile quality in old books that is becoming lost. When I approach the book as a raw material I am trying to rediscover and re-expose these qualities, highlight the natural qualities of the material.”

Maybe that’s the heart of the matter.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Beware Wrong Contexts!

A Bonus Laugh

My “Words Count…” posting of July 8 was funnier than I anticipated, as a sharp follower of this blog alerted me offline.

Oops! Wrong context!

It seems that the acronyms I used, i.e., MWM -- referring to “Million Word March,” and GLM – referring to “Global Language Monitor” -- have totally different import when they show up in the “Personals.” In that context, when someone seeking or offering to meet up refers to MWM, it means “Married White Male”, and when he refers to GLM, it’s “Gay Latin Male.”

Oops!

On the other hand, if I had planned it, I couldn’t have found a better way to highlight a central point about definitions – not just of acronyms, but of ordinary words too: How well a definition works always depends on context.

Hilarious or Disastrous?

Usually, we share enough about the contexts in which we use words that we don’t need to make the context explicit. But sometimes that assumption is wrong. The result can be hilarious, or disastrous.

Dictionaries can never pin down all the contexts that apply for every definition, but they do often try, especially dictionaries aimed at new learners of a second (or more) language – those are users most likely to miss, or misread, subtle contextual cues.

MWM and GLM in Dictionaries

For the fun of it, I looked up these sneaky identity-shifting acronyms in some of the many online dictionaries handling abbreviations.

In www.abbreviations.com, I found “Married White Male” as the 3^rd most popular definition out of 12 listed for MWM, assigned to the category (i.e., the context) of “Community>Law.” My usage (“Million Word March”) doesn’t even appear there. Most popular by far is “Motif Window Manager”, found in the category “Computing>Software.”

Just the opposite applies to GLM: The definition “Gay Latin Male” doesn’t even appear among the 14 definitions there. But you or anyone can enter it, since the site invites definitions. (That variant of what I’ll jokingly call the “happy Hispanic hombre” definition does show up in some other dictionaries.) “Global Language Monitor” appears in www.abbreviations.com as the 2^nd most popular usage for those initials, in the category “Computing>software.” The most popular definition for GLM comes from Business, specifically stock exchange symbols, and refers to “Global Marine Inc.”

What is a “Word” Anyway?

In closing, it’s intriguing that this discussion relates also to my last posting (July 24) because it shows yet another way that OED and other dictionaries may violate themselves. They define dictionaries as defining “words.” So what about dictionaries of acronyms? Are acronyms “words”?

Once again, what dictionaries are doesn’t seem like such a straightforward matter.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

OED Violates itself, On a Leaky Raft, Caught by a Sculptor!

No, This Won't Be Titillating

Dictionaries – I’m referring here mainly to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) -- are bodies ofknowledge, not physiological bodies, so be assured this posting will be tantalizing, but not titillating.

A Side Comment, Sort of:

Younger readers probably have no idea what I just referred to. After all, giving “self-violation” a sexual connotation is so day-before-yesterday!

Actually, that “side comment” is central because it illustrates this posting’s main point:

Dictionary definitions change as society changes – but not in real time. (See “Leaky Raft” below).

Back to OED

The OED is generally considered the gold standard in lexicography. So it’s newsworthy -- at least blog-worthy -- to report that OED (Ready for this?) has violated one of its own definitions!

To make the situation truly involuted, the word it has violated is “Dictionary.”

Evidence? Consider OED’s definition of “Dictionary” in both the print and online editions. It begins:

“1. a. A book dealing with the individual words of a language ….” (OED online, accessed 7/7/09)

I highlighted the guilty word -- “book.” Guilty, that is, of appearing under false pretenses as of 2008, when Oxford University Press announced it has no plans to publish OED again in book form; future updates will be incorporated in its online edition.

The media response was quick but, let’s face it, underwhelming. Predictably, it was a New York Times Magazine columnist who gave expression to a rarified emotion: “Lexicographical Longing.” In her column (May 11, 2008) with that title, Virginia Heffernan reminisced about the OED her father gave her many years before, and bemoaned:

“…the O.E.D. was forever. Wasn’t it?

No.

The future is here, and the immortal O.E.D., the one that lives in bound pages last published micrographically in 1991, is obsolete — at least according to the folks who publish it.”

Some Get It, Some Don’t

Several other long-respected book-form dictionaries that are also online -- Webster’s Collegiate, Random House, among others culled on www.dictionary.com – also anachronistically limit their definition of “Dictionary” to “A book that….”

Others waffle. For example, Wordsmyth (www.wordsmyth.net) which I believe was “born” (i.e., first appeared) online, at first is limiting, but inclusive in its second definitiion:

“1. a reference book that contains a list of words ….

2. the electronic form of such a list of words….”

Merriam-Webster Online (www.merriam-webster.com) has caught up with itself by starting its definition as “1 : a reference source in print or electronic form...” [my highlighting], but then reverts to old-fashioned definitions for bi-lingual and other specialized dictionaries, saying both are “reference books…” even though online versions exist.

Cambridge University Press one-ups Oxford with this offering from its Advanced Learners Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org ): “1. A book… or a similar product for use on a computer.”

The Wiki Approach. Wiktionary (en.wiktionary.org) – a product of non-experts’ collaboration, and the only dictionary of those mentioned here not bound (pun intended) by any print tradition -- shows that it is embedded in the wide-ranging and ever-changing media of contemporary communication. Its definition of dictionary begins: “A publication, usually a book…” and defines publication as “The act of publishing printed or other matter.”

A Leaky Raft .

You wondered about the leaky raft? It is my metaphor for the point about dictionaries and social change.

Think of words, and especially meanings, as fluid -- constantly flowing like a more-or-less tumultuous river. (Theorists will find that metaphor used even more broadly, in Harrison White’s 2008 book, Identity and Control: How Social Formations Emerge.)

In that flow of meanings, dictionaries are one type of socially-organized attempt to carry groups of people along together – that is, enable groups to share meanings and therefore to carry on reasonably coordinated conversations and activities.

Dictionaries help stabilize meanings, for a while, and their creators do manage to repair broken slats in the metaphoric rafts, but they can never be completely up-to-date – at best, they are leaky rafts.

Art has the Final Word.

Using a wonderfully pun-ny title (“Atlanta artist digs old books”), a reviewer for the Atlanta Journal Constitution (7/3/09) describes 30-something sculptor Brian Dettmer’s work. In Catherine Fox’s words:

“Dictionaries and encyclopedias, once library stalwarts, are fast becoming relics. Now that information is in a state of constant update and available almost instantly to anyone with an Internet connection, what is the use of any compendium of knowledge bound between two covers?

Brian Dettmer has found one. Wielding knives, tweezers, surgical tools and the patience of Job, the Atlanta artist transforms book has-beens into art…”

To see how Dettmer’s use of words in their material form, not their “dictionary meanings,” dramatically closes this posting, follow this link (or google him yourself): centripetalnotion.com/2007/09/13/13:26:26/

Words Count. But Why Count Words?

Million Word March?? I’ve just slogged through what feels like a million words written about the “Million Word March.” Words vigorously promoting the “March” battling more words roundly panning it, What’s causing all that vehement verbiage? An ongoing project mounted by Global Language Monitor (www.languagemonitor.com). GLM self-describes as a site that:

“… documents, analyzes and tracks trends in language the world over, with a particular emphasis upon Global English.”

The MWM project claims to have an up-to-the-minute count of words in the English language. For years, GLM predicted the date when the millionth word would meet the entrance requirements (criteria set by GLM), revising its predictions to later and later, grabbing some media attention each time. Finally, this June, the magic moment arrived! To be precise: June 10, 2009 at 5:22 am Eastern Time. Too bad most of us were sleeping.

Lots of media covered it, but by now the focus had morphed: controversy the project has sparked among linguists became as newsworthy as the GLM-hyped lexical (non)-event.

CNN reported (www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/09/million.words) that GLM’s founder, Paul J.J. Payack, had become “somewhat of a pariah in the linguistic community.” That’s putting it mildly.

Back in 2006, Jesse Sheidlower, editor at Oxford University Press in New York, wrote in Slate (www.slate.com/id/2139611/#Return) that Payack’s claims were “suckering even the respectable press.” By 2009, New York Times reporter Jennifer Scheussler (June 14, “Keeping it Real on Dictionary Row”) wrote, “It’s hard to find scholars who react with anything less than blunt outrage at the headline-garnering ‘Million-Word March’ ” Some reactions, wrote Scheussler, were unprintable. Printable ones included “it’s bushwa, fraud, hokum … a sham… hoax....“

A Bonanza! Like ambulance-chasers at a gruesome car wreck, sociologists typically race to get material from a sharp controversy, especially if it erupts in a usually staid community. What could be more staid than the community of dictionary scholars (“lexicographers”, to the cognoscenti)?

But the sociologists haven’t clustered at this sometimes nasty debate basically because so few of them study language issues – and fewer still focus on lexicography. Yet a bonanza of issues for sociology of language, and of culture, lurks here. A few:

· Why is counting words newsworthy in the first place?

· How and why does word counting happen regularly in the dictionary world? How does that relate to thing-counting in many parts of our culture?

· Zeroing in on the controversy, what is at stake that gets so many people so riled up? [“Zeroing in” pun intended !].

Too much, in fact, to tackle in one post. I’ll just circle around the broadest question:

· Why the fascination with counting words?

Give or take 3 million? About three decades before Payack launched his maligned “March,” a scholar appropriately named Read estimated about 4 million words in English. Sidney Landau cites that tidbit in his respected book: Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography (2^nd ed, , 2001, Cambridge U. Press). But Landau uses it only to pronounce the effort futile: “Read’s was as good a guess as any, but even so it is not very meaningful.” (Landau, p.28)

So, why do linguists even bother? Reasons vary from, at one extreme, nationalistic pride resting on questionable theories that languages with more words support more sophisticated thinking, to a more modest aim that Landau proposes. For his study, even a very approximate answer could be useful as a base to figure, roughly, what percentage of a language (in this case, English) is covered by its most complete dictionaries. The answer: Noone knows, except the certainty that even an “unabridged dictionary” is nowhere near “complete.”

So, forget about the denominator, i.e., number of words in English. But what about the numerator -- the word count in any given dictionary? That’s a highly competitive game they all seem to play, even though most reasons linguists gave to belittle Payack’s claimed count, also apply within the clearer boundaries of a dictionary.

Consider verbs: Should you count each form separately? For example: Is the dictionary entry for “count” one word? Or should it be four, by also including: “counts,” “counted,” and “counting”? There are an awful lot of verbs, so your decision would have major impact.

Furthermore, like many words, “count” is polysemous (that’s jargon for “having multiple meanings.”) So, maybe “count” should be counted three times – once for its meaning as a verb, to enumerate; another time for its meaning as a noun, i.e., the result of enumerating, and yet again as a noun that refers to a title in British society? And how should we treat different “senses” of a word, such as the sense of “count (enumerating)” which means the non-numeric value placed on something – “In a democratic society, your opinion counts.”

Those are just a few of the complexities!

And yet, the same dictionary publishers whose word-mavens smartly itemize pitfalls preventing useful counts that can be reliably compared to each other, typically feature just such counts on their book covers or their websites. Inconsistent? Not really, because it’s not the lexicographers sullying their purity, it’s the marketing departments doing their thing.

More Words for Your Money!! And that moves us into another topic worth probing: the struggle between the “professional and scientific” (or “the art and craft”) model of creating dictionary content versus the practical matter of financially supporting that expensive habit – after all, flashy word counts can pull in purchasers.

But that’s for another time – you’ve already gotten 907 words – totally free! (Now, 912).

Defining "Defining Experiences"

And the title is....

The title of a book or movie or -- as here -- a blog, should grab your attention, and then make a stab at answering the question: "What's it about?" I've tried to do both, also sneaking in a little word play.

The first aim worked, apparently, since you are here (unless you are here only as a dutiful daughter or a faithful friend).

As for the "about" question: Playing with words is part of what it's about, but even more, it is about working with words. I'm referring to the work that determines whether certain words should be admitted into dictionaries and, if they are let in, how much they should be pampered, or pretty much left to fend for themselves. That's the main reason the title refers to "defining" -- this blog will deal with defining, as in creating dictionaries, but also many other experiences that involve "doing definition."

So, the word play is...

"Defining Experiences" as a title can be understood several ways, and that's the fun of it.

"Defining" could be read as an adjective -- describing certain experiences as having lasting significance. That is probably the way you first perceived this "collocation" (i.e., two or more words typically used together, like "defining experiences" or "defining moments") That's not how I mainly mean it here, but I might give that sense of it a post, eventually.

Or, "defining" could be a noun -- the act or experience of defining -- which is the main way I intend the expression here.

And a third possibility: "defining" could be a verb, referring to applying the act, in this case, to the word, "experiences". At some time I might do a post on definitions of the word "experiences," but that's not for now.

Working with words is intriguing because...

I liked that title precisely because it self-exemplifies a fundamental feature of words and phrases that is not well-recognized for its sociological significance: Most words, alone and in phrases, have multiple meanings -- multitudes, in fact, if we consider fine shadings that apply in each individual conversation or document where words and phrases are performing their service.

Given that reality, a major goal of the considerable work put into dictionaries (more precisely, a goal of the professionals who write most dictionaries) is a valiant effort but is, in a deep sense, impossible to achieve. Dictionary-writers attempt in vain to encompass and pin down some limited number of definitions (a separate matter from deciding whether to include words to be defined). And dictionary-users in turn seek what is essentially unreachable -- general definitions that precisely apply to the unique situations where they encountered particular words, or plan to use them.

From that last paragraph -- which implies that dictionaries are cultural products that engage a broad range of users and producers -- lots of questions about language and society spring up. This blog aims to inform and entertain partly by clarifying and dealing with those questions.

(Did I mention that I am a sociologist and that's the perspective that will suffuse this blog?)

News reports about dictionaries and defining???

Yes, the media do pay attention -- rarely -- to these kinds of questions. So along the way, I'll throw in news and op-ed items involving dictionaries and "social defining."

There's more to explain, but...

This is enough, I hope, as a start to convey the thrust of this blog. Let me know if it's not clear -- or if you disagree (or agree) with the little bit of information I've shared so far.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%