Dear All,
On Saturday 2002-07-06 Michael Quinion included this piece in his weekly
World Wide Words* newsletter:
My response to Michael Quinion appears below his article.
5. Article: How do words become part of the language?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A student recently e-mailed me to enquire how a word officially
becomes part of the English language. He was certain that there
must be some formal process involved. Surely, he said, there must
be a body such as a group of lexicographers that decides when a
word is really a word, as otherwise English would be anarchic.
People ask variations on this question a lot. Many believe that
when (and only when) a word appears in a reputable dictionary it
receives formal validation and can take its place in the English
lexicon. Even the Guardian newspaper fell into this trap recently
when it referred to "bonkbuster" (see footnote) as having "gained
official recognition as part of the English language", when it was
included in the most recent update of the Oxford English Dictionary
online.
My young correspondent description suggests a delightful scenario.
As one of a number of researchers who collect evidence of new usage
for the OED, it intrigued me to think that I might be a member,
even a junior member, of a shadowy cabal that sets the standards
for all well-educated English speakers. No - the process really is
as anarchic as it seems. This is actually a relief, since I'd hate
to be held personally responsible for the current state of the
language.
In the world of today's lexicography, usage is king. We are, in the
language of the business, "descriptive" dictionary makers: we
record, we collate, we analyse, and we describe what people
actually say and write. If enough English speakers decide that some
word or phrase has value, to the extent that those who encounter it
are likely to need to consult the dictionary in search of its
meaning, then it is put into new editions. Not always very quickly
- there is merit in taking one's time to build up a picture of
usage and so avoid being misled by temporary enthusiasms and short-
lived fashion. And if enough speakers decide that a word no longer
means what the dictionaries say it means but something else
entirely, then we have to note that, too. You may feel that such
changes amount to misuse - and certainly terms do change because of
ignorance or misunderstandings - but that's largely irrelevant to
the job of the dictionary maker.
This standpoint is sometimes misunderstood, and as often disliked.
People who consult dictionaries most commonly want the tablets of
the law, not a mirror to language. In practice, dictionaries take a
middle course between whole-hearted descriptivism and prescriptive
edicts. They advise when a form is controversial, or a word is
going out of use, or is shifting its sense. But what they don't do
is leave out such changes or make personal judgements on which
words are worth including and which not.
Some people hate this anarchy so much that there are occasional
calls for a body to regulate the language, control what should be
in and what out, and to advise users on what is good English and
bad. The example of the Acad�mie Fran�aise is often put in
evidence. The Acad�mie attempts to maintain the purity of the
French language (for example, by providing lists of French words
that are suitable alternatives to the influx of English neologisms,
such as replacing "tie-break" with "jeu d�cisif", "walkman" with
"baladeur", or "software" with "logiciel"), but its influence,
though great, has not been decisive. There have been determined
attempts to amend the way people use languages: Noah Webster was
influential in changing some spellings in the United States after
the 1820s; Kemal Atat�rk changed Turkish to the Latin script in
1928 and removed many borrowings from other languages; the
Singapore government has instituted a Speak Good English session
every April to persuade local people to use international English
rather than their own patois called Singlish; there have recently
been spelling changes in both Dutch and German. Making that kind of
change requires political will and muscle and is hard even then.
Canute had it right - there are some tides which authority is
unable easily to resist or control.
In the end, the decision about what appears in a dictionary lies
with its editors. And that means there are - in theory - as many
possible decisions about what constitutes correct, current English
as there are competing dictionaries. There are constraints, of
course, that lead them to converge - they are all working from the
same evidence, after all, and must satisfy the same book-buying
public that their works are accurate and up to date. And sensible
dictionary publishers provide checks and balances at various stages
to reduce the inevitable subjectivity of individual decisions.
So, no English Academy, I'm afraid. No huddles of earnest scholars,
debating the current crop of neologisms (like "bonkbuster") and
marking them with the tick of official acceptance or the cross of
oblivion. Just a number of individual dictionary editors, trying to
make sense of an inchoate mass of material thrown up by shifts in
fashion, personal usage, inventive genius, new technologies, and a
dozen other factors. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
[* The OED's definition of bonkbuster: "A type of popular novel
characterized by frequent explicit sexual encounters between the
characters. Popularised by the British writer Sue Limb, writing
under the pseudonym 'Dulcie Domum', in her humorous newspaper
column 'Bad Housekeeping' (1990-2001)". The word is from the common
British slang "bonk" for "an act of sexual intercourse", on the
model of "blockbuster".]
***
Dear Michael Quinion,
In WORLD WIDE WORDS ISSUE 296 Saturday 6 July 2002 you stated:
'In the world of today's lexicography, usage is king. We are, in the
language of the business, "descriptive" dictionary makers: we
record, we collate, we analyse, and we describe what people
actually say and write'.
While this is almost universally true, there are some very important words
that have to be strictly defined so that we can cooperate successfully
around the world. The main words that I have in mind are the the words used
in the International System of Units for the measurements we all use. For
example the word 'kilogram' has to be precisely defined as:
Le kilogramme est l�unit� de masse; il est �gal � la masse du prototype
international du kilogramme. (1st CGPM (1889) and 3rd CGPM (1901)).
(Translation: The kilogram is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of
the international prototype of the kilogram.)
This definition of the kilogram is, and it has to be, a standard definition
that does not change through time. Without this definition we could not
readily trade our produce with our neighbours, we could not manufacture
products, we could not trade internationally; and all these abilities rest
on the definition of a fairly small lump of metal that has been kept at the
Bureau International de Poids et Mesures (BIPM) since 1889.
As another example, the 'dictionary definitions'* of words such as cubits,
fathoms, leagues, and miles (statute, survey, or nautical) have all been
replaced by the standard definition of a metre that have gradually become
universally accepted by all the nations of the world. Although this
definition is a little more complex it is accurate and it is precise. The
definition of the metre reads:
Le m�tre est la longueur du trajet parcouru dans le vide par la lumi�re
pendant une dur�e de 1/299 792 458 de seconde. (17th CGPM (1983), Resolution
1). (Translation: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.)
Le Conference Generale de Poids et Measures (CGPM) says that we can get by
with seven base units with standard definitions, these are:
length measured in metres
mass measured in kilograms
time measured in seconds
electric current measured in amperes
thermodynamic temperature measured in kelvins
amount of substance measured in moles and
luminous intensity measured in candelas
Similar logic applies to yards, pounds, feet, and ounces. A yard for example
is defined as 0.9144 metres exactly. Curiously the USA, the last nation on
earth to adopt metric measures, defines all United States Customary Units in
terms of metric measures and has done so since 1893.
* By the way, is the expression 'dictionary definition' an oxymoron?
Would the expression 'dictionary description' be more appropriate?
I am reminded of James Murray's approach to the problem of defining the word
'definition'. When Murray realised that he was not defining words but
describing them, he added a sub-title on the cover of the original 'Oxford
English Dictionary', so that it now reads:
Oxford English Dictionary
On historical principles
Best regards,
Pat Naughtin CAMS^
Geelong, Australia
^ Note: Pat Naughtin is a Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist with the
United States Metric Association
* World Wide Words is copyright (c) Michael Quinion 2002. All rights
reserved. The Words Web site is at <http://www.worldwidewords.org>.
