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.

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.

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