Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Int J Lexicography-2005-Mitchell-203-16 PDF
Int J Lexicography-2005-Mitchell-203-16 PDF
1093/ijl/eci021
The significance of Johnsons dictionary makes sense only when it is seen in the
context of early modern England school grammars. Seventeenth-century grammar
texts included many lexicographical components that dictionary authors had not yet
incorporated in their own lexicons. However, in the eighteenth century as grammarians
became more concerned with pedagogical issues in school grammars, lexicographers
focused on researching and documenting the English language. In A Dictionary of
the English Language (1755), Samuel Johnson combines successful practices of early
grammarians (e.g., grammar, etymology, usage notes, pronunciation, definitions, and
quotations) with witty commentary and literary quotations. Johnsons landmark
dictionary went beyond the efforts of grammarians in that Johnson wanted to do more
than provide lexicographical information. He wanted readers to enjoy reading the
dictionary and to increase their knowledge.
1. Introduction
Although lexicographers in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England had
published some developed dictionaries, it was Samuel Johnsons Dictionary of
the English Language (1755) that set the standards for lexicons in both England
and America. Johnsons dictionary also marked a shift in language authority
from grammarians to lexicographers.1 In the seventeenth century, dictionaries
had consisted of crude lists of synonyms that served as rudimentary definitions to translate foreign languages like Latin or French, while grammar texts
included many of what we would consider lexicographical components:
pronunciation, spelling, definitions, etymology, and usage notes. Grammarians
were primarily responsible for decisions about the English language, decisions
they usually made by consulting Latin grammars that held a centuries-long
tradition of authority.
In the eighteenth century, decisions about language increasingly fell under
the purview of lexicographers. While grammarians continued to focus on
International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 18 No. 2
2005 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,
please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Abstract
204
Linda C. Mitchell
205
language and the writing of it, and the Signification of it will bee always
undoubted and certain, without variation and change; and held to an
immutability; as the Latin now is, by the power of the Grammar and
Dictionaries for Latin. (1649: 40)
206
Linda C. Mitchell
Alphabeticall (1604) Robert Cawdrey lists hard usual English Words that
the reader may come across in Scriptures, sermons, or other places. With
The English Dictionary (1623), Henry Cockerams goal was to interpret hard
words so that the reader could gain competence in the vernacular when he or
she was reading, speaking, and writing. Cockeram claimed to be publishing
thousands of words never before published. Grammar books could not make
that claim because of space limitations; they were increasingly concerned
with explaining Latin grammar rules in the English vernacular. This bilingual
format meant that definitions had to be listed twice.
In the seventeenth century, grammarians still possessed the same authority
to make language decisions they had held since antiquity, and lexicographers
had not yet emerged as a distinct group.
207
208
Linda C. Mitchell
that his work was for those who wanted to write correctly and elegantly, and
he covered difficult words, technical terms, spelling, accents, and pronunciation. The publication of Dyche and Pardons dictionary indicates that grammarians had begun to lose ground, especially since this dictionary stressed
grammar and pronunciation. Lexicographers were working with historical and
empirical data and keeping abreast of linguistic changes. Grammarians, on the
other hand, had become pedagogues, teaching students how to use language,
publishing and republishing little-changed textbooks. The decline in the status
of the grammarian was evident by the middle of the eighteenth century. In
the preface to A New General English Dictionary (1744), Dyche and Pardon
denigrate the grammarian as a person who spends too much time on insignificant niceties, and perhaps they could claim to know, since they were themselves
both grammarians-turned-lexicographers. With Dyche and Pardon, the
responsibility for protecting the standards of English usage from corruption
and deterioration moved from grammarians to lexicographers, a transfer that
is still in force today though perhaps not fully recognized by all language
scholars. Grammarians who had in ancient times been pre-eminent were now
criticized and questioned for their pedagogy and theories, while lexicographers
were increasingly looked upon as authorities.
209
able to read English. The vernacular had been growing and changing in
unpredictable ways to the extent that sixteenth-century language contrasted
significantly with that of the eighteenth century. Johnson even states, no
dictionary of a living tongue ever can be perfect, since while it is hastening to
publication, some words are budding, and some falling away (1755: sig. C2v).
However, Johnsons dictionary helped stabilize the changes in language so that
future generations would recognize the English language.
The eighteenth century was a time of an expanding empire, and Johnson,
more than fellow grammarians, recognized how a growing nation would change
language. Language was affected by commercial trading in both foreign
countries and England. Moreover, many foreigners were entering England to
establish businesses. Johnson sees a natural progress taking place.
210
Linda C. Mitchell
With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but
now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason
nor experience can justify . . . and with equal justice may the lexicographer
be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has
preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his
dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and
decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the
world at once from folly, vanity, and affection. (Johnson 1755: Preface
sig. C2r)
Thus, Johnson admits that a lexicographer has limitations.
When they [words] are not gaining strength, they are generally losing it.
Though art may sometimes prolong their duration, it will rarely give them
perpetuity; and their changes will be almost always informing us that
language is the work of man, a being from whom permanence and stability
cannot be expected. (Plan 1747)
Grammarians were able to be more prescriptive because they recorded rules
in textbooks, but a lexicographer like Johnson was dealing with a body of
words that was growing and changing rapidly.
Johnson had greater freedom to exercise language authority than did the
early grammarians who had to use Latin when making decisions about
the English language. In the Preface to his Dictionary Johnson urges his peers
to protect the mother tongue: Tongues, like governments, have a natural
tendency to degeneration; we have long preserved our constitution, let us
make some struggles for our language (1755: sig. C2v). With the help of
books written by scholars and men of letters, Johnson claimed the role of
lexicographer and seized the authority from grammarians to legislate rules
of language, an authority that dictionary editors retain to this day. According
to Johnson, it was the responsibility of lexicographers to record anomalies
so that undesirable language habits were not perpetuated and reinforced. He
states, every language has likewise its improprieties and absurdities, which it is
the duty of the lexicographer to correct or proscribe (Plan 1747).
Johnson shared the fear of early eighteenth-century grammarians (e.g.,
Charles Gildon (1712), Michael Maittaire (1712), John Garretson (1719), and
James Greenwood (1722)) that the English language might deteriorate.
Johnson acknowledges that some supporters of his dictionary will require
that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time
and change have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition
(Preface sig. C2r). In the Preface he anticipates the objections and concedes
that it is impossible to keep language in a fixed state:
211
212
Linda C. Mitchell
authorities from the writers before Restoration, whose works I regard as the
wells of the English undefiled, as the pure sources of genuine diction (1755:
Preface sig. C1r).8 Although criticized by some as being too scholarly, he chose
quotations from Hooker (theology), Bacon (natural knowledge), Raleigh
(politics, war, and navigation), Spenser and Sidney (poetry and fiction),
and Shakespeare (diction of common life).9 Johnson owed much to the early
grammarians who experimented with lexicographical components in their
grammar texts, yet he greatly expanded and added to those components.
213
7. Conclusion
Johnson saw himself as protector of the English language, despite its protean
instability. No grammarian or lexicographer had ever approached language
in such a complete and documented way.12 Johnson had a different aim from
fellow grammarians and lexicographers; he wanted to entertain as well as
and properly, to be instructed in the rules for right pronunciation, and in the
art of true spelling; and or how to write every word with proper letters (1765:
ix). He wishes to assist young People, Artificers, Tradesmen and Foreigners,
desirous to understand what they speak, read and write (1765: title page).
Entick claims that his grammatical introduction will facilitate the users proficiency in English and help him gain necessary social and linguistic competence.
In A New Dictionary of the English Language (1773) William Kenrick
states on the title page that he will include, for each entry, information on
orthography, etymology, and idiomatic use in writing, all of which had
appeared in the grammar books of the seventeenth century. He will also show
the correct pronunciation according to the present practice of polished
speakers in the Metropolis, further proof of the increased lexicographic focus
on communication at that time. He also includes what he calls a rhetorical
grammar to help people with contemporary speech and communication. Two
other publications aimed at the lower and middle classes are James Barclays
A Complete and Universal English Dictionary on a New Plan (1774) and
John Ashs The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1775).
Both lexicographers include discussions of grammar and communication
skills. Barclay also adds an outline of ancient and modern history, and Ash
includes some essays on linguistic matters.
When lexicographers included grammar, they were unaware they were
gaining an authority over grammarians in standardizing the language. While
grammarians served as pedagogues, concentrating on classroom exercises and
fighting battles over teaching methodologies, lexicographers quietly inventoried and researched usage. In sum, lexicographers became the guardians of
language. The transfer of authority from grammar books to dictionaries was
complete by the latter part of the eighteenth century. Dictionaries now held
linguistic authority, while grammar texts served a purely pedagogical function.
As one might expect, the transfer of linguistic authority brought with it the
propensity for controversy.11 The battles were not just about a word change,
but about who controls language, what social classes are included, and what
groups are excluded. Previously, such grammar books as Lilys had the power
to decide those issues. As dictionaries became more influential and were able
to reach more people, they began to dominate the linguistic sphere. They could
encode values and reflect current language usage. Language is power, and
dictionaries could wield that power by standardizing language.
214
Linda C. Mitchell
inform his readers. Johnsons approach set a new standard for the authority
of dictionaries: an educational tradition in which dictionaries would supply
editorial comments and provide illustrative quotations that would increase
knowledge. Although lexicographers such as Nathan Bailey had published a
variety of dictionaries in the eighteenth century, it was Johnson who produced
the authoritative dictionary that was used for at least one hundred years and
that served as a basis for other dictionaries (e.g., Noah Webster 1806).13
Notes
1
215
12
Reddick (1990: 2) observes, In the eyes of many, soon after the Dictionary
appeared, Johnson began to be seen as a national institution creating a national
monument.
13
[For discussion, see the paper by Landau in this issue of IJL editors.]
References
B. Other Literature
DeMaria Jr., R. 1986. Johnsons Dictionary and the Language of Learning. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Hayashi, T. 1978. The Theory of English Lexicography 15301791. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Leith, D. 1983. A Social History of English. London: Routledge.
216
Linda C. Mitchell
Michael, I. 1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reddick, A. 1990. The Making of Johnsons Dictionary, 17461773. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sledd, J. and Ebbitt, W. R. (eds.) 1962. Dictionaries and THAT Dictionary: A Casebook
on the Aims of Lexicographers and the Targets of Reviewers. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman.
Starnes, D. T. and Noyes, G. E. 1946. The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson,
16041755. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press. (New edition with
additional material by G. Stein, 1991, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins).
Watson, F. 1909. The Beginnings of the Teaching of Modern Subjects in England.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wimsatt Jr., W. K. 1959. Johnsons Dictionary in F. W. Hilles (ed.) New Light on
Dr. Johnson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 6590.