- Free Article: No
- Contents Category: Language
- Review Article: Yes
- Online Only: No
- Custom Highlight Text:
In a 2011 lecture, David Crystal, a leading authority on the English language, spoke about the possibility of a ‘super-dictionary’ of English – a dictionary that would include every word in global English. Such a dictionary was, he acknowledged, a ‘crazy, stupid idea’, but an idea that seemed somehow possible in the electronic age, where the constraints of print no longer apply.
Dictionaries in the mould of Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and James Murray’s Oxford English Dictionary (OED, first volume 1884) have shaped our understanding of what a dictionary is. Dictionaries of the twentieth century, from Webster’s to the Chambers Dictionary to the Macquarie Dictionary to the Australian Oxford Dictionary, have followed in their footsteps.
- Non-review Thumbnail:
The advent of the Internet has challenged publishing and in particular the publishing of reference works, but it has also begun to change the very form and nature of dictionaries. Dictionaries have now morphed into large lexical databases that can be searched, linked, and supplemented with additional information and features. In addition, crowd-sourced online dictionaries such as Urban Dictionary challenge the traditional work and authority of lexicographers by drawing on contributions from Internet users, and the development of free online dictionary sites such as Dictionary.com has challenged the financial models of traditional dictionary publishing.
In this volatile world of dictionary publishing, the super-dictionary as a scholarly project is a remote dream, well beyond the resources of any single publisher or organisation. Such a dictionary would require considerable financial support, and would have to rely on a great deal of global cooperation. It would take years of work, and the editorial policies and principles on which it would operate would no doubt be the subject of much debate. Yet the idea itself prompts us to think about a number of important issues surrounding language and dictionaries.
One such issue is the need to acknowledge the size and scope of global English. The Global Language Monitor controversially declared that the number of words in the English language passed the million mark on 10 June 2009 (according to them, the number now stands at just over 1,025,109). While some people have queried the methodology behind these statistics, it is safe to say that the number of words in the English language is large enough that publication of a dictionary that included ‘everything’ would be a monumental task. In addition, the number of new words coming into the language is estimated by the Global Language Monitor as being around 14.7 words a day; trying to keep up with this pace would challenge even the best team of lexicographers. The global varieties of English – from that spoken in New Zealand to China to West Africa – also need to find a rightful and important place in our understanding of the English language, and a super-dictionary goes some way to acknowledging the true diversity of the language.
Most dictionaries (even online ones) can’t capture the diversity or breadth of the vocabulary – nor in the past have they needed to. Dictionaries have often been aimed at particular audiences (for example, a school dictionary), and they are often specific to the country in which they are produced, reflecting that particular variety of English. A super-dictionary on the other hand would need to capture every word possible, including the ephemeral words produced in contexts such as the ‘twitterverse’ and social media, as well as slang, professional jargon, and scientific vocabularies.
A super-dictionary could capture the breadth and many varieties of English in a way that a dictionary such as the OED, for all its range and depth of scholarship, cannot. While the OED is considered to be something of a super-dictionary, insofar as there is a common perception that it includes all the words in the English language, it is necessarily limited by resources. As Michael Proffitt, the new chief editor, recently said, they can’t include everything, and why should they, when others who are working on such projects as the Australian National Dictionary and the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (to cite just two examples of historical dictionaries whose second editions are due out in the next couple of years) can provide much more expertise in their areas?
Yet if the OED cannot be the super-dictionary, will we ever have one? It is likely that a super-dictionary will remain elusive, but it offers the vision of chronicling the richness of English as a global language, and the possibility of creating a coherent archive of ephemeral and marginal words that might otherwise never find their way into a dictionary.
Dictionaries are ever reflective of the mindset of the times that produced them. For example, the OED reflected the Victorian passion for the scientific recording, classifying, and understanding of the English language and, through it, the world around them. The super-dictionary perhaps reflects the global and omniscient visions engendered by the electronic age.
Comments powered by CComment