我的寒假...來了:")
英國文學期末報告(about Samuel Johnson)
Rachel Chang 張詠惠
498001280教育學系三年甲班
The story of the 18th most important dictionary
Dictionaries play an important role in our learning. Many of us learn to look out new words in the dictionary in schools when we are only nine years old. As we move on to college, dictionaries have become even more important as the need of reading and writing in English rise. However, with its high accessibility, we have taken it for granted: we can download the dictionary apps for our ipod, spend money to buy one, or just log on our internet to check out Oxford English Dictionary with just a click away.
However, it is in no way that dictionary just came out by downloading from “somewhere (if so, it would be the top secrets secured by FBI or CIA). So I wondered how was the dictionary born? And what happened then? To answer these questions, I found it interesting to dig into the story of one of the most important dictionary in 18th, A Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson.
I. The dictionary makers before Samuel Johnson
Before the publication of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary, twenty and more dictionaries had been born. According to Oxford, the word dictionary was first used by Sir Thomas Elyot for his Latin-English ‘Dictionary’ in 1538. He wrote it as a way to express his national pride in the language, along with Caxton, who starts printing Westminster in 1476 (in that time, access to publication is the elementary step for dictionary making). It was the time of Early Modern English, which is characterized by the first edition of the King James Bible(1611) and the works of William Shakespeare (1590~1612). Cockeram in 1623 was the first to call his work an ‘English Dicitonarie’.
As pioneers, they did some brave experiments that made Johnson’s work easier by building on their achievements. For example, Blount in 1656 was the first one who attempts etymologies and make citation from some authorities; Edward Philips, having 11,000 items in his New World of English Words (1658), was the first to provide a history of the English language in his preface. Regarded by Miss Noyes, John Kersey, the England’s first outstanding lexicographer, produced in 1708 the first dictionary with some right to be called “universal”. And Nathan Bailey, whose dictionary was the most popular before Johnson’s, strode forward in 1721 in the handling of etymologies, the treatment of old words, and the indication of pronunciation.
However, not all steps taken during that time are progressive. Cockeram began the confusion between words meaning and things by inserting encyclopedic information in the dictionary, which was finally make clear by the great Oxford Dictionary three hundred years later. And they developed the tendency to give word’s definition in a prescriptive way—which is strong recommended to be discarded nowadays—for according to our linguistic textbook, each language is unique in its wonder and beauty. Even Johnson was influenced by this bad tradition, by trying to set standard and to “fix” the language. Stuart Chases also said in the Power of Words: “The great Dr. Johnson tried to freeze English as of the middle of the eighteenth century, thereby misunderstanding a vital function of language—namely, to grow and change with the culture.”
Moreover, they are generally criticized for poor organizing and too much emphasize on ”inkihorn terms,” such as commotrix (“a maid that makes ready and unready her Mistris”) and gargari (“to wash or scowre the mouth with any Physicall liquor”). One historian said in summary that they "failed to give sufficient sense of [the English] language as it appeared in use." But above all, instead of looking down upon their hard-working as garbage and ignorant them as uncompleted work, we should give our highest respect for their groping and toilsome works.
II. All begins with the Plan
In the 17th century, books are rare and veneration, but by the mid-eighteenth century this was no longer the case. Thanks to the technical advances, books are cheaper and the literacy among the general public rise; hence, the need for a better dictionary become obvious.
However, since the knowledge given by the pioneer dictionary makers are limited and some even have some faults, an explosion of the printed word demanded a new dictionary which can provide pattern of grammar, definition, and spelling for words. In the light of this, in June 1746, a union of London's most successful printers, including Robert Dodsley and Thomas Longman, set out to satisfy and capitalize on this need by the ever increasing reading and writing public. Dodsley had earlier engaged Johnson—who was already the author of Gentleman’s Magazine, London and a prospective editor of Shakespear by that time—to write for the educational text entitled The Preceptor and some associated. And these processes, according to James Boswell’s record, made the idea of writing a dictionary “grow up insensibly in his mind.” Finally, Johnson agreed to write a dictionary for about 36,000 U.S. dollars.
The next year, he published The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language, in which he declared his intent “to preserve the purity and ascertain the meaning of the English idiom.” His Plan received the patronage of Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield. However, Johnson isn’t happy about it. He thinks that Chesterfield made no effort to further the progress of the Dictionary until seven years after his original investment into the project.
Though Chesterfield wrote two anonymous essays in The World to promote the Dictionary later, Johnson thinks that Chesterfield had failed his promise as a good patron. Accusing Chesterfield of only providing help when it was least needed, Johnson wrote: “Is not a patron, my Lord, one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help? The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind: but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoyed it; till I am solitary and cannot impart it; till I am known and do not want it.”
In 1853, Thomas Carlyle, in his biography of Johnson proclaimed its significance: “Listen, once again, to that far-famed Blast of Doom, proclaiming into the ear of Lord Chesterfield, and, through him, of the listening world, that patronage should be no more!” In fact, this relationship has been one of the most popular topic debated and discussed. And according to Congleton, more recent studies have been less emphatic in their pronouncement, trying to settle the proportion of reprehensibility between the Patron and the Scholar.
III. “by examples from the best writers”
One of Johnson’s brilliant innovations is his approach of adapting illustrative quotations. He hoped that by using these quotations, he would “relieve the labour of verbal searches, and intersperse with verdure and flowers the dusty desarts of barren philology.” The following is how he describes the practice:
When first I collected these authorities, I was desirous that every quotation should be useful to some other end than the illustration of a word; I therefore extracted from philosophers principles of science; from historians remarkable facts; from chymists complete processes; from divines striking exhortations; and from poets beautiful descriptions.
Being one of the Renaissance writers, Johnson regarded himself as guardians of linguistic purity and correctness, which he sought to exemplify from the “best” authors. Choosing those whom he considered the best and most useful authors during 1588 to 1745, Johnson read “good” authors and recorded how they used the language. His most frequently cited include Shakespeare(about fifteen percent of the total), Dryden(about six point five percent of the total) and still many thousands more from Bacon, Hooker, Locke, Pope, Robert Boyle, and the King James version of the Bible.
IV. Too much “gems” in the dictionary?
The work was completed nine years later in 1755. It contained 42,773 entries, with their usage illustrated by more than 114,000 quotations. Despite all these huge works, Johnson is largely criticized for having some “ridiculous” definition, which Donald Greene called “gems,” meaning the personal-sounding. Among the famous examples are words such as oats (“a grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people“), Whig (“the name of a faction”), conqueror (“one that subdues and ruins countries”), and the example of irony—“Bolingborke was a pious man.” Johnson did put his own view into the definition of words. And critics thus arise.
From research that focus on the politics aspect of Johnson’s dictionary, we can see that Johnson selects quotation sources from the culture and the mainstream value his in—at least he did his best to do it right and fair. For example, Locke was taken as his principal political philosopher as well as his principal epistemologist and educational thinker in the education al project of transmitting British culture.
Though it is still possible to argue whether “the dictionary” is an instrument of ideological dominance or hegemony, we may see that many dictionaries written before and after Johnson’s are clearly ideological and tendentious. As a result, I think though we can still put Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary under the focus of politics, we shouldn’t be too harsh in criticizing our brave early dictionary maker. Moreover, there are researchers warning that we shouldn’t exaggerate on the few pieces of flaws and view too much to claim Johnson as a partisans or radical. There are, most of the times, just some widely accepted value at that particular culture and background.
I believe that Johnson knew as much as we know that the Dictionary serves the purpose of general education, and the most important knowledge it conveys is general truth. As DeMaria noted, when Johnson does choose illustrations from politically oriented works, he excerpts them in such a way as to play down their controversial aspects and highlight their general philosophical content—He keeps to the mainstream as much as possible and rarely expresses specific views.
V.
Johnson’s dictionary is the most commonly used for the 150 years between its first publication and the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary in 1928. And despite all the critics we can find or agree, we should always keep in mind that though Dr. Johnson’s contribution to our knowledge of English words has never been assessed—and may never be—but there can be no doubt that he is the central figure in lexicography.
Reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/
Burgess, Anthony. “The Dictionary Makers.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976- ) 17.3 (1993): 104-110.
Congleton, J.E. “Johnson’s Dictionary, 1775-1955.” South Atlantic Bulletin 20.4 (1995): 1-4.
DeMaria, Robert Jr. “The politics of Johnson’s Dictionary”. PMLA 104.1 (1989): 64-74.
Demaria, Robert Jr., and Kolb, Gwin J. “Johnson’s ‘Dictionary’ and Dictionary Johnson.” The Yearbook of English Studies 28 (1998): 19-43.
DeMaria, Robert Jr. “The Sources of Johnson’s Dictionary.” From: http://specialcollections.vassar.edu/exhibits/johnson/essay2.html
Hinckley, Michael. The History of Dictionaries. From: http://www.ehow.com/about_5449031_history-dictionaries.html
Korshin, Paul J. “Johnson and the Renaissance Dictionary.” Journal of the History of Ideas 35.2 (1974): 300-312.
Ramsay, Robert L. “The English Dictionary before Samuel Johnson.” American Speech 22-1 (1947): 57-60.
文章定位：
人氣(77) | 回應(0)| 推薦 (
0)| 收藏 (
0)|
轉寄
全站分類:
不分類
