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.
