But What's a Dictionary For?
Bergen Evans
The storm of abu in the popular press that greeted the appearance of Webster's Third
New International Dictionary is a curious phenomenon. Never has a scholarly work of this
stature been attacked with such unbridled fury and contempt. An article in the Atlantic乘时
viewed it as a "disappointment," a "shock," a " calamity ," "a scandal and a disaster. " The
New York Times, in a special editorial, felt that the work would " accelerate the
deterioration " of the language and sternly accud the editors of betraying a public trust.
The Journal of the American Bar Association saw the publication as " deplorable ," "a
flagrant example of lexicographic irresponsibility," "a rious blow to the cau of good English." Life called it "a non-word deluge " monstrous ", " abominable ," and "a cau for dismay." They doubted that "Lincoln could have modelled his Gettysburg Address" on it –a concept of how things get written th
at throws very little light on Lincoln but a great deal
on Life.
What underlies all this sound and fury? Is the claim of the G. R C. Merriam Company, probably the world's greatest dictionary maker, that the preparation of the work cost $3.5
million, that it required the efforts of three hundred scholar s over a period of twenty –ven years, working on the largest collection of citations ever asmbled in any language
-- is all this a fraud, a hoax ?
So monstrous a discrepancy in evaluation requires us to examine basic principles.
Just what's a dictionary for? What does it propo to do? What does the common reader
go to a dictionary to find? What has the purchar of a dictionary a right to expect for his
money?
Before we look at basic principles, it is necessary to interpo two brief statements.
The first of the is that a dictionary is concerned with words. Some dictionaries give
various kinds of other uful information. Some have tables of weights and measures on
the flyleaves . Some list historical events and some, home remedies . And there’s nothing wrong with their so doing. But the great increa in our vocabulary in the past three
decades compels all dictionaries to make more efficient u of their space. And if
something must be eliminated , it is nsible to throw out the extraneous things and
stick to words.
可燃冰的主要成分是The cond brief statement is that there has been even more progress in the making
of dictionaries in the past thirty years than there has been in the making of automobiles
The difference, for example, between the much-touted Second International (1934) and
the much-clouted Third International (1961) is not like the difference between yearly
models but like the difference between the hor and buggy and the automobile. Between
the appearance of the two editions a whole new science related to the making of
文房四宝指什么
dictionaries, the science of descriptive linguistics, has come into being.
Modern linguistics gets its charter from Leonard Bloomfield's Language (1933).电脑开机自检
Bloomfield's for thirteen years professor of Germanic philology at the University of
Chicago and for nine years professor of linguistics at Yale, was one of tho inminating
scholars who can’ t be relegated to any department and don't dream of accepting
established categories and procedures just becau they're established. He was as much
an anthropologist as a linguist, and his concepts of language were shaped not by Strunk's
Elements of Style but by his knowledge of Cree Indian dialects.
The broad general findings of the new science are:
1. All languages are systems of human conventions , not systems of natural laws.
The first -- and esntial – step in the study of any language is obrving and tting down precily what happens when native speakers speak it.
2. Each language is unique in its pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. It cannot
be described in terms of logic or of some theoretical, ideal language. It cannot be
怎样鉴别和田玉described in terms of any other language, or even in terms of its own past.
3. All languages are dynamic rather than static, and hence a "rule" in any language can
only be a statement of contemporary practice. Change is constant -- and normal
4. "Correctness" can rest only upon usage, for the simple reason that there is nothing el for it to rest on. And all usage is relative.
百年歌
From the propositions it follows that a dictionary is good only insofar as it is a comprehensive and accurate description of current usage. And to be comprehensive it
must include some indication of social and regional associations.
New dictionaries are needed becau English changed more in the past two generations than at any other time in its history. It has had to adapt to extraordinary
cultural and technological changes, two world wars, unparalleled changes in
客房
transportation and communication, and unprecedented movements of populations.
More subtly , but pervasively, it has changed under the influence of mass education and the growth of democracy. As written English is ud by increasing millions and f-or
more reasons than ever before, the language has become more utilitarian and more
informal. Every publication in America today includes pages that would appear, to the purist of forty years ago, unbuttoned gibberish . Not that they are; they simply show that you can't hold the language of one generation up as a model for the next.
It's not that you mustn't. You can't. For example, in the issue in which Life stated editorially that it would folly the Second International, there were over forty words constructions, and meanings which are in the Third International but not in the Second. The issue of the New York Times which hailed the Second International as the authority to which it would adhere and the Third International as a sc
andal and a betrayal which it would reject ud one hundred and fifty-three parate words, phras, and constructions which are listed in the Third International but not g the Second and nineteen others which are condemned in the Second. Many of them are ud many times, more than three hundred such us in all. The Washington Post, in an editorial captioned "Keep Your Old Webster's, " says, in the first ntence, "don't throw it away," and in the cond, "hang on to it." But the old Webster's labels don't "colloquial" and doesn't include "hang on to," in this n, at all.
In short, all of the publications are written in the language that the Third International describes, even the very editorials which scorn it. And this is no coincidence , becau the Third International isn't tting up any new standards at all; it is simply describing what Life, the Washing-ton Post, and the New York Times are doing. Much of the dictionary's material comes from the very publications, the Times, in particular, furnishing more of its illustrative quotations than any other newspaper.
And the papers have no choice. No journal or periodical could ll a single issue
today if it restricted itlf to the American language of twenty-eight years ago. It couldn't discuss halt the things we are inter ester in, and its style would em stiff and cumbrous .
If the editorials were rious, the public -- and the stockholders -- have reason to be
grateful that the writers on the publications are more literate than the editors.
And so back to our questions: what's a dictionary for, and how, in 1962, can it best do
what it ought to do? The demands are simple. The common reader turns to a dictionary
for information about the spelling, pronunciation, meaning, and proper u of words. He
wants to know what is current and respectable. But he wants – and has a right to – the truth, the full truth. And the full truth about any language, and especially about American English today, is that there are many areas in which certainty is impossible and张小五的春天
simplification is misleading.
Even in so ttled a matter as spelling, a dictionary cannot always be absolute.
Theater is correct, but so is theatre. And so are traveled and travelled, plow and plough, catalog and catalogue, and scores of other variants The reader may want a single
certainty. He may have taken an unyielding position in an argument, he may have
wagered in support of his conviction and may demand that the dictionary "ttle" the
matter. But neither his vanity nor his pur is any concern of the dictionary's; it must
record the facts. And the fact here is that there are many words in our language which
may be spelled, with equal correctness, in either of two ways.
So with pronunciation. A citizen listening to his radio might notice that James B.
Conant, Bernard Baruch, and Dwight D. Einhower pronounce economics as ECKuhnomiks, while A. Whitney Griswold, Adlai Stevenson, and Herbert Hoover
