Which Webster's Dictionary?
The op-ed piece in the local paper began, "Amnesty is defined by Webster's dictionary . . .." And at that point I decided to read Doonesbury instead.
It wasn't the topic that troubled me or even the dull, predictable nature of the lead. (Dear Students: If you want to grab your reader's attention, never begin an essay with a definition.)
What distracted me (irrationally, perhaps) was the reference to Webster's dictionary: for over a century, a legally meaningless brand name. Following a flurry of lawsuits filed by G. & C. Merriam (now Merriam-Webster) in the first two decades of the 20th century, the courts declared that "Webster" had entered the public domain. Any one of us, including the diminutive star of a certain 1980s sitcom, is free to publish a dictionary with "Webster" in the title.
Not that Merriam-Webster (now owned by Encyclopaedia Britannica) is pleased about that. The company, which characterizes itself as the "direct lexicographical heir of Noah Webster," reluctantly acknowledges that "other publishers may use the name Webster." But buyer beware: "Only Merriam-Webster products are backed by over 150 years of accumulated knowledge and experience."
Well, the heck with tradition. Lately, it seems, almost every other publisher has adopted the generic "Webster." Consider:
- In 1991, despite protests from Merriam-Webster, Random House Dictionary of the English Language was retitled Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Random House, which belongs to the international media giant Bertelsmann AG, also publishes Webster's Universal College Dictionary.
- The college edition of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (since 1999 published by John Wiley & Sons) happens to be the official desk dictionary of both The New York Times and the Associated Press. Webster's New World is also unrelated to any of the Merriam-Webster titles.
- Webster's II New College Dictionary (2004), an updated edition of Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984), is a slightly shorter (and obscenity-free) version of The American Heritage College Dictionary (published by Houghton Mifflin).
- Encarta Webster's Dictionary: Second Edition (2004) is the latest name for what was originally called Microsoft's Encarta World English Dictionary (1999).
Are there any lessons to be learned here? A couple, perhaps.
- Denotatively, "Webster" is not much more than an informal term for a dictionary--just about any American dictionary. Connotatively, however, "Webster" seems to be associated in many people's minds with authority, authenticity, and tradition: it's "the real thing"--even when it's not.
- If you're in the market for a good dictionary, don't judge a book by its title. In our list of recommended Reference Works for Writers, we point you toward one of the few dictionaries not attributed to Webster.
Finally, if you're a devout traditionalist, visit ChristianSoup.com for the online version of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)--where "electricity" is defined as a "very subtil fluid," new-fangled words such as "automobile" won't distract you, and, quite refreshingly, the word "Webster" appears nowhere in the title.
Image: Emmanuel Lewis, star of the 1980s situation comedy Webster © ABC
Comments
A very good article, which spells out very well the pitfalls of too much faith in dictionarie.
What strikes me about the ‘authority’ of dictionaries, and talismanic names such as ‘Webster’ and ‘Oxford’, is the insecurity of native speakers regarding their own usage of the language, and publishers exploit this.
Many modern dictionaries, due to technological informational improvements, try to base themselves as far as possible on real usage, both written and spoken. Some of the most useful of such dictionaries are those aimed at advanced foreign learners of English. Most of these, besides including CDs, also include grammatical and collocational uses, and could also be recommended for native speakers.
Richard: Do you know why we’ve been taught to put punctuation marks inside closing quotation marks when we’re not actually quoting someone? Because in the late 19th century, Linotype operators found that the stronger quote characters protected the fragile lead periods and commas from breaking off when they occurred at the ends of sentences. When people saw this being done, they assumed it was “correct” and punctuation began being taught that way.
The inside-the-quotes practice makes even less sense when you consider that ending punctuation, unless part of a quoted sentence, is rarely part of the quoted info. This has become particularly important here in the 21st century, where quoted data must often be precise.
I say it’s time to shrug off this mechanical-age neurosis. For example, using a phrase from your article:
…Almost every other publisher has adopted the generic “Webster”.
Yes, it looks wrong at first glance—but only because we’ve been conditioned to do something that made sense only from the viewpoint of a printing-press operator. It’s rebellion time!
Cheers, Ander