Cover not available
Part of
Processes of Change: Studies in Late Modern and Present-Day English
Edited by Sandra Jansen and Lucia Siebers
[Studies in Language Variation 21] 2019
► pp. 1–14

Chapter 3
The obelisk and the asterisk

Early to Late Modern Views on Language and Change

This chapter explores the complexities of the prescriptive-descriptive divide as revealed in three dictionaries from the early to late Modern English period. Lexicographers had not yet arrived at the idea that dictionaries should include all words; hence, those they chose to record in permanent form are telling. Also informative is their application of symbols to certain entries. No doubt this notation was informing readers these words were to be treated differently in some way. Yet, these lexicographers did not seem interested in expunging the entries – and they were certainly not advocating an invariable language. Their aims were more to guide readers in their choice of words and to outline different stylistic choices. Echoing David Crystal (2006a: 106) and linguistic wisdom today, “be linguistically prepared” could well have been their motto.
Keywords: prescriptivism, style, dictionaries, doctrine of correctness, hard words, inkhorn terms, hothourse words, mountweazels
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A brief introduction to the dictionaries
    • 2.1The flourishing of “hard words”
  • 3.The dictionary makers and their linguistic outlook
    • 3.1Notations of correctness or something else
    • 3.2The real linguistic bêtes noires of these dictionary makers
  • 4.The murky ground between prescription and description
  • 5.Concluding remarks – “a marriage of contraries”
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.21.03bur
References (51)
References
Alford, Henry. 2005. Not a word (The New Yorker Magazine; August 25); [URL] [accessed 6th November 2017].
Bacon, Francis. 1613 [1857]. The works of Francis Bacon. Volume 1. Basil Montagu.Google Scholar
Bailey 1727. The universal etymological English dictionary Vol. II London: Cox.Google Scholar
Bale, John. 1543. Yet a course at the romyshe foxe: A dysclosynge or openynge of the manne of synne. Antwerp: Olyuer Iacobson [i.e. A. Goinus].Google Scholar
Baret, John. 1573. An alvearie, or triple dictionarie in Englishe, Latin and French. London: Henry Denham.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. 2010. The grocer’s apostrophe: Popular prescriptivism in the 21st Century. English Today 26 (2). 56–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Language: The loaded weapon. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boswell, James. 1816 [1791]. The life of Samuel Johnson. Volume 4. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 2010. Linguistic cleanliness is next to godliness: Taboo and purism. English Today 26 (2). 3–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Magnificence of promises - Johnson and advertising. Doncaster, Vic.: Papers of the Samuel Johnson Society.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate & Debbie De Lapps. 2015. Living lingo 2. (VCE textbook for Units 3 and 4). Melbourne: Boobook Education.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1994. Putting our practice into theory. In David Graddol & Joan Swan (eds.), Evaluating language: Papers from the annual meeting of the British association for applied linguistics, 15–23. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
. 2012. Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, George. 1776. Philosophy of rhetoric Volume 1. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.Google Scholar
Cawdrey, Robert. 1604. Table alphabeticall, contayning and teaching the true writing and vnderstanding of hard usuall English words, borrowed from the Hebrew, Greeke, Latine, or French. London: Edward Weauer.Google Scholar
Chesterfield, Earl of (Philip Dormer Stanhope). 1754. Notice of Johnson’s dictionary. The World Volume 2 (Number 100). 599–604.Google Scholar
Cole, Elisha. 1676. An English dictionary: Explaining the difficult terms that are used in divinity, husbandry, physick, phylosophy, law, navigation, mathematicks, and other arts and sciences. London: Samuel Crouch.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2006a. The fight for English: How the language pundits ate, shot and left. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Into the twenty-first century. In Lynda Mugglestone (ed.), The Oxford history of English, 394–414. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2014. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Jonathon. 1996. Chasing the sun: Dictionary-makers and the dictionaries they made. New York: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Hedrick, Elizabeth. 1988. Fixing the language: Johnson, Chesterfield, and the plan of a dictionary. English Literary History 5 (2). 421–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2010. Attitudes and concerns in eighteenth-century English. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel 1755. A dictionary of the English language: in which the words are deduced from their originals, and illustrated by examples from the best writers. To which are prefixed, a history of the language, and an English grammar. 2 vols. London: W. Strahan.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2017. Is/ought: Hume’s guillotine, linguistics, and standards of language. Paper presented at the 5th Prescriptivism Conference, Brigham Young University (21–23 June 2017).
Kaye, Patricia. 1989. ‘Women are Alcoholics and Drug Addicts’, Says Dictionary. English Language Teaching Journal 43 (3). 192–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Arthur G. 1927. Hothouse words versus slang. American Speech 2 (10). 417–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Jack. 2006. Disgraced by miscarriage: Four and a half centuries of lexicographical belligerence.” Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries 61. 35–50.Google Scholar
McArthur, Tom. 1995. Culture-bound and trapped by technology: Centuries of bias in the making of wordbooks. In Braj Kachru & Henry Kahane (eds.), Cultures, ideologies, and the dictionary: Studies in honor of Ladislav Zgusta. Lexicographica Series Maior 64, 381–392. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morris, William. 1882. Making the best of it. In The hopes and fears for art. (Five lectures delivered in Birmingham, London, and Nottingham, 1878–1881). London: Ellis and White.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2015. Description and prescription in dictionaries. In Phillip Durkin (ed.), The Oxford handbook of English lexicography, 546–560. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Osselton, Noel E. 1958. Branded words in English dictionaries before Johnson. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar
2006. Usage guidance in early dictionaries of English. International Journal of Lexicography 19 (1). 99–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Edward. 1658. The new world of English words or, a general dictionary. London: Nath. Brooke. (4th ed. 1678 published London: Obadiah Blagrave).Google Scholar
Porter, Roy. 1995. ‘Perplex’t with tough names’: the uses of medical jargon. In Peter Burke & Roy Porter (eds.), Languages and jargons: Contributions to the social history of language, 42–63. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey. 1974. Lowth’s grammar: A re-evaluation. Linguistics 137. 63–78.Google Scholar
Read, Allen Walker. 2003. The beginnings of English lexicography. Dictionaries 24. 187–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sedding, John D. 1891. Garden-craft old and new. London.Google Scholar
Severin, Alyssa. 2017. The nature of prescriptivism and descriptivism online: The case of reddit and r/badlinguistics. PhD thesis, Monash University.Google Scholar
Snell, George. 1649. The right teaching of useful knowledg, to fit scholars for som honest profession. Shewing so much skill as any man needeth (that is not a teacher) in all knowledges, in one schole, in a shorter time in a more plain waie, and for so much less expens than ever hath been used, since of old the arts were so taught in the Greek and Romane Empire. London: Dugard.Google Scholar
Starnes, DeWitt Talmage & Gertrude E. Noyes. 1991. The English dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson, 1604–1755. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, Jan & Geoffrey Leech. 2006. English: One tongue, many voices. Houndvilles: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swift, Jonathan. 1712. A proposal for correcting, improving, and ascertaining the English tongue: in a letter to the host honourable Robert Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, Lord high treasurer of Great Britain. London: Benj. Tooke.Google Scholar
. 1720. Letter to a young clergyman. In Temple Scott (ed., 1898), Writings on religion and the church. Vol. 1, Ch. 8. London: G. Bell.Google Scholar
. 1738. A complete collection of genteel and ingenious conversation, according to the most polite mode and method now used, at court and in the best companies of England. London: Simon Wagstaff.Google Scholar
Taylor, Geoffrey. 1951. Some nineteenth-century gardeners. Essex: The Anchor Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon Van Ostade, Ingrid. 2011. The Bishop’s grammar: Robert Lowth and the rise of prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truss, Lynne. 2004. Eats, shoots and leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Zgusta, Ladislav. 1971. Manual of lexicography. Prague: Academia. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar