LEXICOGRAPHY
Regulating language
... a dictionary by which the pronunciation of our language may be fixed, and its attainment facilitated, by which its purity maybe preserved, its use ascertained, and its duration lengthened.
From Johnson's Preface to The Dictionary
SAMUEL JOHNSON'S monumental work had a long title A Dictionary of the English Language in which the Words are Deduced from their Originals, and Illustrated in their Different Significations by Examples from the Best Writers to which are Prefixed, the History of the English Language, and an English Grammar. In 1747, Dr. Samuel Johnson announced his Plan or Prospectus for his Dictionary of the English Language. When asked by Boswell, his biographer, how he acquired his knowledge of the English language which enabled him to undertake a task of such great magnitude, he said that it was not the effect of particular study, but that it had grown up in his mind insensibly. He assigned tasks to copyists. The words were taken from other dictionaries or supplied by himself. Space was left between words to incorporate etymology, definitions, and the various shades of meaning. Illustrative passages were marked in pencil in the sources. He was so careful in his choice of passages that he quoted no author whose writings were offensive to religion or morality.
Letter to Lord Chesterfield
Johnson's magnum opus was published in two folio volumes in 1755. It was the fruit of single-handed, accumulated labour. From a literary point of view, the publication of his Dictionary is connected with his famous letter to Lord Chesterfield (All this may be Greek and Latin to many today. But there was a time, when Boswell's Life of Johnson was on the English syllabus). Johnson visited Chesterfield in the hope of enjoying his patronage to publish the Dictionary, but suffered a cold reception. When the Dictionary was on the eve of publication, Chesterfield, as Johnson said, "scribbled" two articles in the journal The World praising Johnson and recommending his Dictionary to the public. Johnson could see that he was trying to woo him, thereby expecting him to dedicate the Dictionary to himself. Johnson's letter dated February 7, 1755 reveals at once his independence, dignity and civility. "Seven years, my Lord, have passed since I waited in your outward rooms or was repulsed from your door. I found my attendance so little encouraged, that neither pride nor modesty would suffer me to continue it. I have been pushing my work through difficulties and have brought it to the verge of publication without one act of assistance, one word of encouragement or one smile of favour. The notice you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind; it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it; till I am solitary and cannot impart it; till I am known and do not want it.''
Predecessor
The history of lexicography in England can be traced back to the 16th Century or even earlier. Johnson's immediate predecessor in this field was Nathaniel Bailey whose Universal Etymological English Dictionary appeared in 1721. This publication was a landmark in many ways. It attempted to list all the words in the language. Its new feature was the illustration of meaning or definition with quotations from important authors. It also indicated the accent. In this way, it paved the way for Johnson's epoch-making Dictionary.
Limitations
Johnson's Dictionary fulfilled a real need. It set for the 18th Century a standard or authority to which the students of language could turn. Boswell said that Johnson conferred stability on the language of his country. The Dictionary suffered from some limitations. Definitions of words like pension, oats, politics, Whig and Tory were coloured by personal prejudice. Some definitions were more high-sounding than accurate. Cough is defined as "convulsion of the lungs vellicated by sharp seriosity" and net as a "reticulated, decussated fabric with interstices at intersections" (Someone gave a Johnsonian definition of snuff as a pulverised substance which, when introduced into the nasal cavity, produces a titillating sensation). One or two definitions are light-hearted references to his laborious task. "Grub Street — the name of a street in London, much inhabited by writers of small histories, dictionaries, and temporary poems, whence any mean production is called Grub Street." "Lexicographer — a writer of dictionaries, a harmless drudge." Words which formed part of slang were either excluded or marked as low words.
Johnson included words whose place in the language could be questioned (e.g. ariolation, conclusible, clancular). Noah Webster, the American lexicographer was critical of the inclusion of such words which, he thought, would contribute to the corruption of English. He found Johnson's dictionary "extremely imperfect and full of error and his Grammar wretchedly imperfect." Johnson used difficult words to explain simple words: e.g. burial — sepulchre or internment; dry — dessicative, dryness — siccity or aridity; fits — paroxysm. He defended the use of difficult words in such cases, saying "To explain requires the use of terms less abstruse than that which is to be explained, and such words cannot always be found. For the easiest word, whatever it may be, can never be translated into one more easy." When a lady asked him how he came to define pastern as the knee of a horse, his answer was "Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance."
Johnson's contribution
In spite of these deficiencies, Johnson's Dictionary had positive virtues. It showed the range of English vocabulary more fully than ever before. It provided a system of spelling that could be accepted as standard. It illustrated the use of words with appropriate quotations. Johnson's Dictionary gave rise to the tendency to regard the dictionary as an authority. The 18th Century is considered to be the period of consolidation of the English language. It required a twofold support or foundation — grammar and dictionary. Grammarians and the lexicographers provided this support. Johnson said. "When I took the first survey of my undertaking, I found our speech copious without order, and energetic without rules. Wherever I turned, there was perplexity to be disentangled, and confusion to be regulated." Out of this disorder, he created some measure of order. Looked at from the modern standpoint, the limitations referred to may appear glaring. Lexicography, today, has become a highly sophisticated, scientific and professional area. If we take into account the constraints and the absence of facilities in the 18th Century, we cannot but concede that the publication of Johnson's Dictionary — the result of single-handed effort — was an achievement of no small magnitude.
S. JAGADISAN
M.S. NAGARAJAN
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Literary Review
