int j lexicography-2005-mitchell-203-16.pdf

7/21/2019 Int J Lexicography-2005-Mitchell-203-16.pdf

1/14

JOHNSON AMONG THE EARLYMODERN GRAMMARIANS

Linda C. Mitchell:San Jose State University, Department of English and Comparative

Literature, San Jose,California ([email protected])

Abstract

The significance of Johnsons dictionary makes sense only when it is seen in the

context of early modern England school grammars. Seventeenth-century grammar

texts included many lexicographical components that dictionary authors had not yet

incorporated in their own lexicons. However, in the eighteenth century as grammarians

became more concerned with pedagogical issues in school grammars, lexicographers

focused on researching and documenting the English language. In A Dictionary of

the English Language (1755), Samuel Johnson combines successful practices of early

grammarians (e.g., grammar, etymology, usage notes, pronunciation, definitions, and

quotations) with witty commentary and literary quotations. Johnsons landmark

dictionary went beyond the efforts of grammarians in that Johnson wanted to do more

than provide lexicographical information. He wanted readers to enjoy reading the

dictionary and to increase their knowledge.

1. Introduction

Although lexicographers in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England had

published some developed dictionaries, it was Samuel Johnsons Dictionary of

the English Language(1755) that set the standards for lexicons in both England

and America. Johnsons dictionary also marked a shift in language authority

from grammarians to lexicographers.1 In the seventeenth century, dictionaries

had consisted of crude lists of synonyms that served as rudimentary defini-

tions to translate foreign languages like Latin or French, while grammar texts

included many of what we would consider lexicographical components:

pronunciation, spelling, definitions, etymology, and usage notes. Grammarians

were primarily responsible for decisions about the English language, decisions

they usually made by consulting Latin grammars that held a centuries-long

tradition of authority.In the eighteenth century, decisions about language increasingly fell under

the purview of lexicographers. While grammarians continued to focus on

International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 18 No. 2 2005 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,please email: [email protected]

doi:10.1093/ijl/eci021

atUniversitiKebangsaanMalaysiaonOctober13,2014

http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/


2/14

grammar-related material, lexicographers developed more comprehensive

dictionaries. Johnson was able to write his monumental Dictionary of 1755

because he made use of several techniques grammarians had used in grammar

texts, such as incorporating usage notes, making decisions on correctness,

illustrating meanings with quotations, and even attempting witticisms.

Johnsons ability to use the most successful techniques of grammarians, aswell as lexicographers, helped to shift language authority to lexicographers.

[See also the discussion by Barnbrook of usage notes, this issue of

IJL editors.]

2. Seventeenth-century grammarians and authority

The significance of Johnsons dictionary makes sense only when it is seen in

the context of grammar texts in early modern England.2

Seventeenth-century grammar books were in Latin, with some explanation

in the vernacular, and they covered a wide range of language-related material.

Grammar texts might include such varied components as hard-word lists,3

spelling, pronunciation, synonyms, homonyms, etymology, Latin-English

dictionaries, poetry, logic, rhetoric, and Scripture lessons. Some texts even

included encyclopedic matter, such as caring for sick cows or planting crops.

It is important to note, however, that English grammar texts were not

considered reliable linguistic referees. Since Latin had centuries-old traditional

authority, grammarians looked to Latinists to arbitrate grammatical questions.William Lilys A Short Introduction of Grammar (1567), for example, not only

held the rights to a nationally-approved grammar (of Latin) to be used in

schools, it also held a position of authority and prestige.

By mid-seventeenth-century, grammarians were already arguing for a

dictionary that would fulfill lexicographical needs. As early as 1649 George

Snell called for a dictionary that was separate from grammar texts. In The

Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge, Snell notes:

second medium to make the English tongue a settled, certain and corrected

language, would bee to cause a Lexicon to bee composed, wherein a full

measure of all sorts of words, as in a common store-house, may bee laid up.

(1649: 35)

He lists eight components to be included in the dictionary:

(1) words which are fair and pleasing words to the ear

(2) origination (i.e., etymology)

(3) a brief description of every noun and verb

(4) words used frequently

(5) words with different levels of meaning

204 Linda C. Mitchell



Downloadedfrom


3/14

(6) words that are Anglicized

(7) standardized lexicon and grammar

(8) rules that come from a designated authority (1649: 36)

This list is surprisingly well defined for the middle of the seventeenth century.

Snell claims that if these instructions are followed,

language and the writing of it, and the Signification of it will bee always

undoubted and certain, without variation and change; and held to an

immutability; as the Latin now is, by the power of the Grammar and

Dictionaries for Latin. (1649: 40)

Johnson would follow these eight requirements in his dictionary.

Several grammarians of the seventeenth century were already using lexico-

graphical techniques in their texts. In Orbis sensualium pictus (1659), alsoconsidered to be an early foreign language dictionary, Johann Amos Comenius

defines words by using pictures to connect the names of objects with their

referents. A tool for teaching grammar and vocabulary to young children, the

book consists of a series of drawings in which each picture has numbers affixed

to things for the students to name. Below the drawing the numbers are listed

with vocabulary to correspond to the picture. Comenius experimented with

pictures and words to teach visible language, a method that is still used today

with children. Elisha Coles also uses a lexicographical format in Nolens Volens:

Or You Shall Make Latin Whether You Will or No (1675) to explain rules

in English with Latin examples, a method unusual for grammar texts in the

seventeenth century. He places an English word by a small drawing of

an object, then he uses the word in a quotation from the Bible, first on the left

side in English, then on the right side in Latin. Although Coles method was

an efficient one for teaching grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling,

etymology, and religion, teachers found it easier to stay with known,

traditional ways of teaching grammar. Lexicographers in the next century,

however, would continue the practice of using pictures and quotations indictionaries.

In the seventeenth century, grammar books satisfied both Latin and English

vocabulary needs, while dictionaries were usually confined to one language.4

Grammar books had an advantage because they listed Latin-English and

English-Latin word lists, while dictionaries specialized only in difficult English

words. Until the end of the century grammar books were still all about Latin,

even when written in English, even when they were called English grammars

in their titles.5 Latin grammar books, therefore, were not always practical

for someone who wanted to find an English word and its synonym, spelling, or

pronunciation. Dictionaries, by contrast, could focus on short definitions and

could include more information about the word. For example, in A Table

Johnson Among the Early Modern Grammarians 205



Downloadedfrom


4/14

Alphabeticall (1604) Robert Cawdrey lists hard usual English Words that

the reader may come across in Scriptures, sermons, or other places. With

The English Dictionary (1623), Henry Cockerams goal was to interpret hard

words so that the reader could gain competence in the vernacular when he or

she was reading, speaking, and writing. Cockeram claimed to be publishing

thousands of words never before published. Grammar books could not make

that claim because of space limitations; they were increasingly concerned

with explaining Latin grammar rules in the English vernacular. This bilingual

format meant that definitions had to be listed twice.

In the seventeenth century, grammarians still possessed the same authority

to make language decisions they had held since antiquity, and lexicographers

had not yet emerged as a distinct group.

3. Early eighteenth-century grammar texts and new lexicographical demands

In the early eighteenth-century, the publication of grammar books for English

created a greater demand for vocabulary in the vernacular. This demand

increased even more as the vernacular lexicon began to stabilize and the

dictionary-type material outgrew the parameters of grammar books.

Dictionaries, however, were still elementary, with only a short definition,

synonym, or commentary for each word; grammar books included the more

analytic information: pronunciation, meaning, parts-of-speech classification,

etymology, spelling, and usage. During this phase, grammarians (e.g., Guy

Mie` ge 1688, Richard Johnson 1706, Charles Gildon 1712, Michael Maittaire

1712, James Greenwood 1722) tried to retain their authority in making

decisions about language. One way they were able to sustain their authority

was to increase the kinds of material in grammar texts. For example, Gildon

added rhetoric, logic, poetry, and composition to the 1712 edition ofGrammar

of the English Tongue.

Grammarians, however, were experiencing conflicts among themselves. They

could not agree on whether to teach grammar with Latin or English models,

whether to continue the practice of translation and imitation, and whetherto learn grammar first in Latin or in the native tongue. As a result, grammar

books were being called upon to play a stronger and larger pedagogical

role. As the opportunities for public education increased, children of the lower

and middle classes were filling classrooms, and schools needed grammar texts

to make students literate (see Watson 1909: 12134). In addition, the increased

need for skills in the commercial world forced authors of grammar books to

include practical instruction, such as familiarizing students with the format

of the business letter. Thus, while grammarians were battling over teaching

methods and grammatical theory, and at the same time producing texts for an

increasing curriculum and student body, lexicographers focused on setting

language standards.




Downloadedfrom


5/14

Moreover, grammarians had not resolved their long-standing argument

of custom and usage versus authority. Lexicographers in the meantime had

created a strong position for themselves by researching language and imposing

correctness on the vernacular. Early eighteenth-century lexicographers

inventoried definitions, pronunciation, and various forms of spelling.

Lexicographers like John Kersey (A New English Dictionary, 1702), Edward

Cocker (Cockers English Dictionary, 1704), and Nathan Bailey (An Universal

Etymological English Dictionary, 1721) helped establish the dictionary as a

reliable reference tool (see Hayashi 1978: 5789). Lexicographers did not see

themselves as authors of grammar texts; instead, they were protecting and

preserving the English language. Lexicographers took on another role, that

of standing in for an academy that would legislate linguistic matters, such as

the Acade mie Francaise formed in 1635 (see Leith 1983: chapter two). Most

grammarians wanted language to develop naturally and not be bound by an

academy that would dictate language decisions. However, some learned menlike Jonathan Swift were afraid that the English language would be corrupted,

and some even expressed the concern that what was being written at that time

would be unrecognizable to future generations.

In the early eighteenth century, as the vernacular became the language of

the educated, grammarians assumed a stronger pedagogical role in teaching

English to larger groups of students of the rising classes, while lexicographers

assumed the task of improving the content of dictionaries. In the seventeenth

century, dictionary entries had been unreliable, but now lexicographers were

documenting inventoried lists with an increasing degree of accuracy. The

dictionaries, however, were still at times misleading because they were incom-

plete documents of the language with unclear definitions, unrepresentative

examples of earlier words, and inadequate histories of words and word

families.

4. Early eighteenth-century lexicographers

The move on the part of early eighteenth-century lexicographers to have morecontrol over language is not obvious as they were still making their mark. In

this stage lexicographers did much to shape dictionaries as we know them

today, but they continued many of the practices they had started in the

seventeenth century with improvements in their presentation of the material.

They continued the practice of using pictures in dictionaries because it was

an efficient method of defining words. The pedagogy of connecting words with

pictures is still used today, especially with young children and in foreign

language classes.

The first dictionary to have a compendium of grammar is Thomas Dyche

and William Pardons New General English Dictionary (1735).6 Dyche, also

a grammarian, was able to see the necessity of such an inclusion. He claimed




Downloadedfrom


6/14

that his work was for those who wanted to write correctly and elegantly, and

he covered difficult words, technical terms, spelling, accents, and pronuncia-

tion. The publication of Dyche and Pardons dictionary indicates that gram-

marians had begun to lose ground, especially since this dictionary stressed

grammar and pronunciation. Lexicographers were working with historical and

empirical data and keeping abreast of linguistic changes. Grammarians, on the

other hand, had become pedagogues, teaching students how to use language,

publishing and republishing little-changed textbooks. The decline in the status

of the grammarian was evident by the middle of the eighteenth century. In

the preface to A New General English Dictionary (1744), Dyche and Pardon

denigrate the grammarian as a person who spends too much time on insignifi-

cant niceties, and perhaps they could claim to know, since they were themselves

both grammarians-turned-lexicographers. With Dyche and Pardon, the

responsibility for protecting the standards of English usage from corruption

and deterioration moved from grammarians to lexicographers, a transfer thatis still in force today though perhaps not fully recognized by all language

scholars. Grammarians who had in ancient times been pre-eminent were now

criticized and questioned for their pedagogy and theories, while lexicographers

were increasingly looked upon as authorities.

5. Johnson and the early modern grammarians

Johnson inherited many legacies from early grammarians. He looked at the

ways grammarians attempted to codify rules for pronunciation and spelling;

he extended their work on definitions, etymology, and usage. Johnson was just

as concerned as grammarians about the English language being corrupted and

about fixing the language so that it would not deteriorate. Early eighteenth-

century lexicographers, such as Nathan Bailey, followed the methodology

of early grammarians by including many of the same components in their

dictionaries. Johnson referred to Baileys dictionary while writing his own.

Johnson shared an anxiousness with grammarians that the English language

would change beyond recognition. He may have read how Guy Mie` ge(English Grammar 1688) warns both native speakers and foreigners not to

incorporate any more foreign words. Mie` ge observes that now the English is

come to so great Perfection, now tis grown so very Copious and Significant, by

the Accession of the Quintessence and Life of other Tongues, twere to be

wished that a Stop were put to this unbounded Way of Naturalizing foreign

Words (A9). Johnson also shares the concern with early grammarians that

foreigners will corrupt the English language.7 He argues that patriotism and

national identity should be reinforced by having foreigners learn the mother

tongue as soon as possible. However, while early grammarians were focused

onfixing the English language, eighteenth-century lexicographers like Johnson

aimed to slow the changes in language so that future generations would be




Downloadedfrom


7/14

able to read English. The vernacular had been growing and changing in

unpredictable ways to the extent that sixteenth-century language contrasted

significantly with that of the eighteenth century. Johnson even states, no

dictionary of a living tongue ever can be perfect, since while it is hastening to

publication, some words are budding, and some falling away (1755: sig. C2v).

However, Johnsons dictionary helped stabilize the changes in language so that

future generations would recognize the English language.

The eighteenth century was a time of an expanding empire, and Johnson,

more than fellow grammarians, recognized how a growing nation would change

language. Language was affected by commercial trading in both foreign

countries and England. Moreover, many foreigners were entering England to

establish businesses. Johnson sees a natural progress taking place.

Total and sudden transformations of a language seldom happen;

conquests and migrations are now very rare; but there are other causesof change . . . commerce, however necessary, however lucrative, as it

depraves the manners, corrupts the language; they that have frequent

intercourse with strangers, to whom they endeavour to accommodate

themselves, must in time learn a mingled dialect, like the jargon which

serves the traffickers on the Mediterranean and Indian coasts. This will

not always be confined to the exchange, the warehouse, or the port, but

will be communicated by degrees to other ranks of the people, and be

at last incorporated with the current speech. (Johnson 1755: Preface

sig. C2r)

Johnson argued that as a country grows, so does the language. The alternative

would be a stagnant, isolated nation.

There are likewise internal causes equally forcible. The language most

likely to continue long without alteration, would be that of a nation raised

a little, and but a little above barbarity, secluded from strangers, and

totally employed in procuring the conveniences of life; either withoutbooks, or . . . with very few: men thus busied and unlearned, having

only such words as common use requires, would perhaps long

continue to express the same notions by the same signs. (Johnson 1755:

Preface sig. C2r)

Grammarians in the eighteenth century resisted change and moved to more

conservative, prescriptive beliefs about fixing language. Lexicographers like

Johnson, however, adopted more flexible, descriptive ideas of how language

changes naturally.

Despite his recognition of the mutability of living language, Johnson wanted

to do what grammar texts had not yet accomplished: codify and standardize




Downloadedfrom


8/14

the English language. In the Preface to his Dictionary Johnson urges his peers

to protect the mother tongue: Tongues, like governments, have a natural

tendency to degeneration; we have long preserved our constitution, let us

make some struggles for our language (1755: sig. C2v). With the help of

books written by scholars and men of letters, Johnson claimed the role of

lexicographer and seized the authority from grammarians to legislate rules

of language, an authority that dictionary editors retain to this day. According

to Johnson, it was the responsibility of lexicographers to record anomalies

so that undesirable language habits were not perpetuated and reinforced. He

states, every language has likewise its improprieties and absurdities, which it is

the duty of the lexicographer to correct or proscribe (Plan 1747).

Johnson shared the fear of early eighteenth-century grammarians (e.g.,

Charles Gildon (1712), Michael Maittaire (1712), John Garretson (1719), and

James Greenwood (1722)) that the English language might deteriorate.

Johnson acknowledges that some supporters of his dictionary will requirethat it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time

and change have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition

(Preface sig. C2r). In the Preface he anticipates the objections and concedes

that it is impossible to keep language in a fixed state:

With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but

now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason

nor experience can justify . . . and with equal justice may the lexicographer

be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has

preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his

dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and

decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the

world at once from folly, vanity, and affection. (Johnson 1755: Preface

sig. C2r)

Thus, Johnson admits that a lexicographer has limitations.

When they [words] are not gaining strength, they are generally losing it.

Though art may sometimes prolong their duration, it will rarely give them

perpetuity; and their changes will be almost always informing us that

language is the work of man, a being from whom permanence and stability

cannot be expected. (Plan 1747)

Grammarians were able to be more prescriptive because they recorded rules

in textbooks, but a lexicographer like Johnson was dealing with a body of

words that was growing and changing rapidly.

Johnson had greater freedom to exercise language authority than did the

early grammarians who had to use Latin when making decisions about




Downloadedfrom


9/14

the vernacular. He tries to observe the goals of both grammarians and

lexicographers:

where caprice has long wantoned without control, and vanity sought praise

and by petty reformation, I have endeavoured to proceed with a scholars

reverence for antiquity, and a grammarians regard to the genius of our

tongue. (Johnson 1755: Preface sig. A2v)

Johnson carries on the tradition of the early grammarians; however, takes it

a step farther.

The words, thus selected and disposed, are grammatically considered;

they are referred to the different parts of speech; traced, when they are

irregularly inflected, through their various terminations; and illustrated

by observations, not indeed of great or striking importance, separatelyconsidered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, and hitherto

neglected or forgotten by English grammarians. (Johnson 1755: Preface

sig. B2r)

The task of the lexicographer, he argues, is to correct or proscribe, not to

form (1755: Preface sig. A2r) here, with respect to orthography. He is the

first lexicographer and grammarian to pay serious attention to phrasal verbs.

He was also able to stabilize orthography in his dictionary.

Johnson departed from the early grammarians in other ways. Because of the

challenge of defining common words without using more difficult words in the

definitions, he depended on illustrative quotations. He specifies that he was

desirous that every quotation should be useful to some other end than the

illustration of a word (1755: Preface sig. B2v). Johnson complains that readers

seldom . . . turn over books only to amuse their leisure, and to gain degrees of

knowledge. He adds, these readers know not any other use of a dictionary

than that of adjusting orthography, or explaining terms of science or words of

infrequent occurrence, or remote derivation. For example, he definesphilologyby borrowing a quotation from William Walkers instruction to teachers in

English Examples of the Latin Syntaxis: Temper all discourses of philology

with interspersions of morality (1686: A8r). This is Johnsons attempt to

connect education with morals (see DeMaria 1986: 13). When Johnson lists

meanings to a word, he includes quotations from diverse sources so that

readers can interpret for themselves political, philosophical, or moral concepts

(see Reddick 1990: 911). Early grammarians, however, were limited in that

grammar instruction included only religious and moral instruction. For

example, Elisha Coles (1675) connects grammar and Scripture for religious

instruction, and Edward Leedes (1685) correlates language with good character

moral lessons. Johnson claims he endeavoured to collect examples and




Downloadedfrom


10/14

authorities from the writers before Restoration, whose works I regard as the

wells of the English undefiled, as the pure sources of genuine diction (1755:

Preface sig. C1r).8 Although criticized by some as being too scholarly, he chose

quotations from Hooker (theology), Bacon (natural knowledge), Raleigh

(politics, war, and navigation), Spenser and Sidney (poetry and fiction),

and Shakespeare (diction of common life).9 Johnson owed much to the early

grammarians who experimented with lexicographical components in their

grammar texts, yet he greatly expanded and added to those components.

6. Grammarians among the lexicographers

As Johnson and other dictionary authors discovered, lexicography has the

advantage of clarity, an element not always possible in grammar texts. Clarity

is what gave them an advantage over grammarians and, consequently, the

opportunity to seize linguistic authority. For example,A Vocabulary or PocketDictionary (1765) more clearly identifies usage errors and more coherently

and consistently lists preferred usage than did grammar books (1765: sigs.

C1-C8).10 In it, the anonymous author describes what he calls the inflected

parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, verbs, pronouns) and the non-inflected

parts of speech (adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, interjections). In another

section, Of the signification and Use of Certain Words, he describes how

to make decisions on usage by referring to custom and to the best writers. The

third section of this chapter cites examples of incorrect word order and

preferred order. A second chapter on grammar, An Account of the Most

Usual Mistakes in English Grammar, clarifies structural and grammatical

problems. A structural mistake, for example, would be I had the same thought

as you, whereas the preferred usage is I had the same thought that you had

(1765: sig. C3). This particular dictionary also includes other information

about a word, such as its part of speech, the shades of its meaning, and its

etymology. It even included a history of the English language. Although the

anonymous author assumes that custom and usage should determine rules,

he argues that a grammarian should share in the responsibility of fixing themeaning and use of words. Otherwise, the grammarian has nothing left him

belonging to the Language, but the Inflections, which are extremely few; and

the Order in which Words are placed in a Sentence (1765: sigs. B5r-B5v).

Building upon Johnsons authoritative work, other lexicographers con-

tinued to go beyond the limited scope of the dictionary to cover both grammar

and lexicon in even more detail. Lexicographers were also more alert than

grammarians to issues of conforming to rules and standards, especially to the

way people used language in social situations. John Entick, for example,

promises in The New Spelling Dictionary (1765) to help the reader write and

pronounce the English tongue with ease and propriety (1765: title page). In the

introduction, he reinforces his aim for people to speak and to write correctly




Downloadedfrom


11/14

and properly, to be instructed in the rules for right pronunciation, and in the

art of true spelling; and or how to write every word with proper letters (1765:

ix). He wishes to assist young People, Artificers, Tradesmen and Foreigners,

desirous to understand what they speak, read and write (1765: title page).

Entick claims that his grammatical introduction will facilitate the users profi-

ciency in English and help him gain necessary social and linguistic competence.

In A New Dictionary of the English Language (1773) William Kenrick

states on the title page that he will include, for each entry, information on

orthography, etymology, and idiomatic use in writing, all of which had

appeared in the grammar books of the seventeenth century. He will also show

the correct pronunciation according to the present practice of polished

speakers in the Metropolis, further proof of the increased lexicographic focus

on communication at that time. He also includes what he calls a rhetorical

grammar to help people with contemporary speech and communication. Two

other publications aimed at the lower and middle classes are James BarclaysA Complete and Universal English Dictionary on a New Plan (1774) and

John Ashs The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1775).

Both lexicographers include discussions of grammar and communication

skills. Barclay also adds an outline of ancient and modern history, and Ash

includes some essays on linguistic matters.

When lexicographers included grammar, they were unaware they were

gaining an authority over grammarians in standardizing the language. While

grammarians served as pedagogues, concentrating on classroom exercises and

fighting battles over teaching methodologies, lexicographers quietly invento-

ried and researched usage. In sum, lexicographers became the guardians of

language. The transfer of authority from grammar books to dictionaries was

complete by the latter part of the eighteenth century. Dictionaries now held

linguistic authority, while grammar texts served a purely pedagogical function.

As one might expect, the transfer of linguistic authority brought with it the

propensity for controversy.11 The battles were not just about a word change,

but about who controls language, what social classes are included, and what

groups are excluded. Previously, such grammar books as Lilys had the powerto decide those issues. As dictionaries became more influential and were able

to reach more people, they began to dominate the linguistic sphere. They could

encode values and reflect current language usage. Language is power, and

dictionaries could wield that power by standardizing language.

7. Conclusion

Johnson saw himself as protector of the English language, despite its protean

instability. No grammarian or lexicographer had ever approached language

in such a complete and documented way.12 Johnson had a different aim from

fellow grammarians and lexicographers; he wanted to entertain as well as




Downloadedfrom


12/14

inform his readers. Johnsons approach set a new standard for the authority

of dictionaries: an educational tradition in which dictionaries would supply

editorial comments and provide illustrative quotations that would increase

knowledge. Although lexicographers such as Nathan Bailey had published a

variety of dictionaries in the eighteenth century, it was Johnson who produced

the authoritative dictionary that was used for at least one hundred years andthat served as a basis for other dictionaries (e.g., Noah Webster 1806).13

Notes1 I am indebted to Jameela Lares and E. D. Schragg for many helpful suggestions.

A Cordell Fellowship at the Rare Books Library, Indiana State University (Terre

Haute) and a fellowship at the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, UCLA,

provided time and support for work on this essay. I wish to thank Readers Services

at the Bodleian Library, Cambridge University Library, the Henry E. Huntington

Library, and the Folger Library for their generous assistance.2 For a thorough discussion and bibliography of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century

grammarians, see Michael (1970).3 Hard-word lists were often made up of polysyllabic, Latinate words, or even

Greek words, that were difficult to understand because they were not yet assimilated

into the mainstream of usage.1 Hard-word lists were a challenge for grammarians. These

lists were supposed to include only those words which a normal reader did not know,

but determining exactly which words were little known was not an easy task for those

early grammarians who also worked as lexicographers.4 Dictionaries for translating one or more languages consisted of synonyms, but they

usually did not provide more extensive information.5 It was not until the beginning of the eighteenth century that English grammar

books about English grammar are published.6 The section on grammar is titled Youths Guide to the Latin Tongue (1735).7 Jeremiah Wharton (1654), James Howell (1662), Joseph Aickin (1693), Henry

Care (1699), Guy Mie` ge (1688), James Greenwood (1722), James Harris (1751), Daniel

Fenning (1763), and John Rice (1765).8 DeMaria (1986: x) notes that Johnson maintained an identifiable central cluster

of concerns: knowledge and ignorance, truth and probability, learning and education,

language, religion and morality, Johnsons Dictionary and the Language of Learning(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).

9 DeMaria (1986: x) points out that the Dictionary is a chronicle of how these

subjects have been treated by the authors . . . In another sense, Johnsons book is

[important because] [h]e does not simply record everything available to him: he makes

choices about which works to include and which to exclude . . . .These choices are not

usually or mainly personal choices, but they are choices, and the vision of the intellec-

tual world Johnson gives us is different from the vision in, say, Charles Richardsons

Dictionaryor Websters III.10

A Vocabulary or Pocket Dictionary(1765); a similar book wasA Pocket Dictionaryor Complete English Expositor (1753).

11 For accounts of battles fought over Websters Third New International Dictionary

(1961), see Sledd and Ebbitt (1962).




Downloadedfrom


13/14

12 Reddick (1990: 2) observes, In the eyes of many, soon after the Dictionary

appeared, Johnson began to be seen as a national institution creating a national

monument.13 [For discussion, see the paper by Landau in this issue ofIJL editors.]

ReferencesA. Dictionaries and Grammars

Ash, J. 1775. The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language. London.

Bailey, N. 1721. An Universal Etymological English Dictionary. London.

Barclay, J. 1774. A Complete and Universal English Dictionary. London.

Cawdrey, R. 1604. A Table Alphabeticall. London.

Cocker, E. 1704. Cockers English Dictionary. London.

Cockeram, H. 1623. The English Dictionary. London.

Coles, E. 1675. Nolens Volens: Or You Shall Make Latin Whether You Will or

No. London.

Coles, E. 1679. A Dictionary, English-Latin, and Latin-English. London.

Comenius, J. A. 1659. Charles Hoole (trans.) Orbis sensualium pictus. London.

Dyche, T. 1707. A Guide to the English Tongue. London.

Dyche, T. 1731. The Spelling Dictionary. London.

Dyche, T. 1731. Youths Guide to the Latin Tongue. London.

Dyche, T. and Pardon, W. 1735. A New General English Dictionary. London.

Dyche, T. and Pardon, W. 1744. A New General English Dictionary. London.

Entick, J. 1765. The New Spelling Dictionary. London.

Garretson, J. 1719. English Exercises for School-Boys to Translate into Latin.

London.

Gildon, C. and Brightland, J. 1712. A Grammar of the English Tongue. London.

Greenwood, J. 1722. An Essay Towards a Practical English Grammar. London.

Greenwood, J. 1737. The Royal English Grammar. London.

Hoole, C. 1651. The Latin Grammar. London.

Johnson, R. 1706. Grammatical Commentaries. London.

Johnson, S. 1747. The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language. London.

Johnson, S. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. (First folio edition) London.

Kenrick, W. 1773. A New Dictionary of the English Language. London.

Kersey. J. 1702. A New English Dictionary. London.

Lily, W. 1567. A Short Introduction of Grammar. London.

Maittaire, M. 1712. The English Grammar. London.

Mie` ge, G. 1688. English Grammar. London.

Snell, G. 1649. The Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge London. A Vocabulary or

Pocket Dictionary. 1765. London.

Walker, W. 1686. English Examples of the Latin Syntaxis. London.

B. Other Literature

DeMaria Jr., R.1986. Johnsons Dictionary and the Language of Learning. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press.Hayashi, T. 1978. The Theory of English Lexicography 15301791. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

Leith, D. 1983. A Social History of English. London: Routledge.




Downloadedfrom


14/14

Michael, I.1970.English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Reddick, A. 1990. The Making of Johnsons Dictionary, 17461773. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Sledd, J. and Ebbitt, W. R. (eds.) 1962. Dictionaries and THAT Dictionary: A Casebook

on the Aims of Lexicographers and the Targets of Reviewers. Chicago: Scott,

Foresman.

Starnes, D. T. and Noyes, G. E. 1946.The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson,

16041755. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press. (New edition with

additional material by G. Stein, 1991, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins).

Watson, F. 1909. The Beginnings of the Teaching of Modern Subjects in England.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wimsatt Jr., W. K. 1959. Johnsons Dictionary in F. W. Hilles (ed.) New Light on

Dr. Johnson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 6590.




Downloadedfrom

int j lexicography-2005-mitchell-203-16.pdf

Documents