Lexicography

Before I get into a whole spiel about lexicography, I'd like to promote the site that taught me about it; TED. TED is not a person, but an organization whose name is an acronym for Technology, Entertainment, and Design. "It was started in 1984 as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader. The annual conference now brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes)."

The TED site currently hosts over 200 presentations given at their conferences with speakers including, Dave Eggers, Jane Goodall, Mike Rowe and John Hodgeman. All of the talks are available for free viewing and download, both as video and audio. As their motto states, the purpose of their organization is not to make money, but to continually support, "Ideas worth spreading."

The inspiration for this particular post comes from a talk give by Erin McKean at TED 2007. Her talk can be viewed here. I had no idea who she was before watching the video. As it turns out, Erin McKean is the editor in chief of the American Oxford Dictionary. What a bad ass.

The whole premise of her talk is that dictionaries in their current paper form are completely outmoded and limited in their ability to describe and define the English language. She stated that the dictionary's structure and content hasn't really changed since the reign of Queen Victoria. By content, I don't mean the words themselves haven't been updated, but the information given about them hasn't changed (i.e. pronunciation, etymology, classification). Paper dictionaries, because they are necessarily limited by their number of pages, are also limited in the number of words they have. This, of course, means words get left out. And because dictionaries are considered the ultimate source for "official words," if a word isn't in a dictionary, it is assumed it isn't a "real" word. Well, this just isn't true. It just means there isn't enough room for all the words.

McKean argues that lexicographers, or people who compile dictionaries, have been relegated to the role of traffic cop. They are the deciders of what goes in the dictionary and what stays out. The problems with that is that, "If you have artificial restraints, it leads to arbitrary distinctions and a skewed world view." A word being in a dictionary gives it the distinction of being more "real" or "official" than a word not in the dictionary.

The solution to all this is to get dictionaries of off paper and online. Her brainchild, which was not covered in her talk, is an online dictionary she created called Wordnik. It's still in beta stage, but the idea of the dictionary is to scan through all manner of written material like books, magazines, comics, blogs, etc. and find new words and enter them into Wordnik. The sentence the word was used in, as well as its definition and frequency of use is also included. Not only that, but there will be an audio clip that pronounces the word properly. Words can also be submitted and defined by the average person a la Wikipedia. It is slightly different in that before a new word gets posted, it has to go through review by the Wordnik people.

While a courageous project and one I giddily anticipate using, I still think it is flawed and I'm not sure there will ever be any solution to it. As stated before, dictionaries are looked at as authoritative texts that allow people to check a word's meaning and usage. While certainly not inclusive, it gives people a guide and shows them what is generally accepted in everyday speech. Language and speech is fluid and adaptive to the environment in which its used. One wouldn't go into a job interview and say, "Yo, how's it hangin', bro?" Generally, a person would say, "Hello, nice to meet you. How are you?" The normative, everyday speech in the second example is the type found in current paper dictionaries. If a word like "yo" were looked up in Wordnik, thirty different definitions and uses might be posted there. How would a person know in what context to use the word? Too many choices can lead to ambiguity and confusion. The great thing about paper dictionaries is that they limit the options and create a guide for standard speech. People know they are safe if they use a word found in Webster's. Can they have that same assurance with something like Wordnik where "slang" words are defined right next to "proper" ones.

The point of Wordnik is to respond to the immense fluidity of language. Word spelling, pronunciation, and definition change over time. Shakespeare is always the go-to guy for examples in the evolution of language. In the course of 400 years the English language has changed immensely. Pronouns like thee, thou, and thine are not in common use anymore, therefore, they are not in dictionaries. If old words are saved and kept in dictionaries, as is suggested in this Times article, are we embracing the fluidity of language or stagnating it? Here comes the tree analogy. Language can be thought of as a tree. The tree keeps growing and new branches and leaves sprout. Where do the old ones go? Many of them fall off or need to be cut down. Language changes and sometimes words disappear and sometimes for good reason. If we stop and keep every word alive, the many grammatical and syntactical systems now in place would become useless. It would be a kind of language anarchy, with no word or rule any more important than the other.

Located in the FAQ section of Wordnik is a question that asks,

"I looked up a word in Wordnik that I know isn't right, and you have tons of sentences for it. What gives?"

The answer:

Here at Wordnik, we show you what people actually do with language, not what we'd like them to do. We think it's important to show real information about every word—even the ones that aren't considered standard. However, just because a word is in Wordnik doesn't mean you have to use it!


The problem with the anything goes approach to defining words, as the answer readily agrees with, is that it does not conform to any standard. Without any standard, how will people know what to use? What if they use one of the more obscure definitions of a word? The person they are writing or speaking to will not understand what they are saying. There will be confusion.

I am always questioned by people about being such a stickler for grammar. My grammar is far from perfect; comma usage is the bane of my existence, but I am more particular than the average person. "Why?" people ask me. "What difference does it make if I end a sentence with a preposition or say who instead of whom?" Well, it does make a difference. Rules of language and grammar are created so that there is a standard form of communication everyone can understand. What if everyone followed their own set of traffic laws? Car accidents would be a lot more frequent. If everyone followed their own rules of grammar or defined words however they wanted, people would not understand each other. No one would agree on what a word means and it would probably fall out of use simply for being so confusing. Even though it's limiting, some set of standards for word definitions has to be created, otherwise people couldn't communicate. The shift in definition of a word for one person doesn't mean everyone else in the world is caught up and knows that new definition. Change takes time.

Putting definitions on the Internet may speed up a word's evolution, but that still means someone has to input and decide the definitions on the site. There is still a governing body, there are still lexicographers deciding what a word's primary definition and the primacy is based on usage. I don't think popularity necessarily equates correctness. Just because more people say "Who did you go with?" instead of "With whom did you go?" it doesn't make the first one correct. It just means more people use it. Will the rules for the objective case eventually change, rendering whom obsolete? Maybe. But currently we have a system in place that states in certain situations whom is the proper word. If Wordnik reports that "who" is the more common usage, is it going to ignore the grammatical rule that states whom should be used when it is the object of a preposition? Is it going to promote the popularly used choice over the standardized correct one?

It's a very tricky thing to decide how best to document a language because it cannot be easily contained or distilled. It is a constantly shifting entity that is open to and thrives on change. Many words in use today are the result of breaks with "standardized rules." People get lazy and combine two words or drop the syllables at the end of a long word, or a decree is made that says the sound of the vowels should change. Many times popular usage is the reason behind a change in definition. The vastness and mercurial nature of language makes it difficult to document and presents a unique set of challenges to whomever attempts such a task. My criticisms of Wordnik are not meant to discourage or rally against the idea, (I'm actually very excited about it) but to continue the discussion on words and language and definition, and figure out who to get along with each other when there are 200 words to say hello.

For more information on Erin McKean and other kick-ass word related websites, please explore the links below:

TED Profile
Erin McKean's Blog: The Dictionary Evangelist
Verbatim: The Language Quarterly Language and linguistics for the layperson since 1974
Wordnik: Erin McKean's online dictionary