The Lexicographer's Rules

The Scottish Language Dictionaries program has had its funding withdrawn by the Scottish Arts Council.

SLD, a charity, is responsible for the Dictionary of the Scots Language online (which offers at no charge the 22 volumes of the Scottish National Dictionary and the Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, and other works), the Concise Scots Dictionary, the Essential Scots Dictionary, and other reference works.

As a regular user of DSL, I write this email in order to encourage my colleagues to support SLD in any way they can.

To ensure that they stay in operation, SLD is holding a fundraiser by auctioning celebrity-related items on eBay, including stuff from actor Alan Cumming, radio presenter Andrew Marr (whose “Start the Week” podcast is one of my must-listens), the shooting script for the movie Sweet Sixteen, dinner with Hardeep Singh Kohli—he’ll cook, a signed photo of actor Robbie Coltrane, and other items.

The auction.

The main site.

A story in the Scotsman about the funding and fundraiser.

Thanks.

A hat-tip to the SouthWest Writers’ group, which mentioned Double-Tongued Dictionary in its July-August newsletter. Thanks!

My latest column in the Malaysia Star.

Note that these columns are written for an audience that may not speak English as a first language. In them I often explain things that are obvious to a native speaker of English but may not be to an English-learner.

...

One of the hardest things to get a handle on when trying to understand the everyday speech of an average English-speaker is the way it is littered with apparently useless little words and phrases.

The most derided is like, but there are also um, err, you know, ah, well, and dozens more. Linguists call them disfluencies. A disfluency is a break in the steady flow of speech.

Some years ago at university, I heard a classmate use the disfluency I mean 35 times in less than two minutes. It was irritating to hear and it made me think she was stupid.

But I now know that those throwaway words aren’t quite so disposable as they seem. For one thing, they can contain information. For another, they can be guideposts to someone else’s way of acting.

Even the brightest people use them. Andrew Marr’s program Start the Week on BBC Radio 4 features some of the top minds of our era talking about their areas of expertise. Many of them write successful books and give well-received lectures. They’re intelligent, thoughtful people.

Yet, they almost compulsively tend to start their answers to questions with the word “well”.

A guest on the programme might say something like (I am inventing this so as to not cause anyone any embarrassment), “Well, I’m not sure when the buboes first began appearing, but we know for certain when the plague died out.”

(A bubo is a dark, incredibly swollen lymph node in the armpit or groin, historically known as a symptom of the Black Plague that swept through Europe and killed millions in the 1600s.)

What is the “well” doing there at the beginning of the sentence?

Well, as Neal Norrick writes in his book Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in Everyday Talk, anyone telling a story tends to pause at the beginning of the tale. Those pauses, Norrick writes, “encourage audience attention and participation”.

Using words like well, um, or you know at the beginning increases a listener’s anticipation. In just the little bit of time it takes to say them, listeners come to greater attention and grow ready for what the speaker really has to say.

Those little words also allow the speaker, just for the briefest moment, to collect his thoughts, order his words, and come up with the best opening line he can think of.

Even storytellers who have told a tale hundreds or thousands of times will find a way to hem and haw (to speak uncertainly or indecisively) in order to draw all eyes and minds to the next words in the story, which are the most important ones by far.

Um is a particularly interesting disfluency. It is often used unconsciously as a way of stalling for time when one does not know what to say. It and other disfluencies are also used when you do not want someone else to take over the conversation, so you say something like, “As I was saying, uh, um, er, there was an, uh, um, time I could speak off the cuff and didn’t need notes.”

(If you do something off the cuff, you do it in an impromptu way, without rehearsal or preparation.)

By filling the holes in your thoughts with those filler words, you keep the listener hanging on. When it is used consciously, however, the speaker uses um as a showy way of taking a pause. For example,

Speaker 1: What are you doing in my car?

Speaker 2: Ummm…

Speaker 1: Oh! Sorry! I have a Honda the same colour. I thought you were in my car.

The second speaker, instead of getting angry or defensive, uses a long drawn-out um to give the first speaker a chance to come to the correct conclusion. It saves them from having a disagreement and, perhaps more importantly, it lets the first speaker go away without feeling too stupid. It allows him to identify his mistake himself.

I mean is the disfluency I still notice the most and which I think most people don’t notice at all.

One of its main purposes is editing, that is, when you’re speaking and you need to go back and correct, explain, or amend something you said.

For example, “There is no way I’m getting in that car. I mean, it stinks like a dead animal and the seats are missing.” Or, “She’s too good for her job. I mean, she’s so good at it that she should be promoted.”

In the first sentence, I mean is a way of introducing why you won’t get into the car.

In the second sentence, I mean is followed by an explanation that you didn’t mean that she thought the work was beneath her or that she is a snob who has an unbelievably high opinion of herself. You just thought she was good at her work.

I mean, you know, like, um, more next time.

My latest column in the Malaysia Star has been posted. The column is based on a radio essay that I wrote in June 2007 but never aired. In short, I’m endorsing the use of quotation marks for emphasis. John McWhorter more or less agrees in a column he published in the New York Sun in August 2007.

...

There’s a chain of restaurants in the United States called White Castle that sells greasy, yummy, little, oniony hamburgers in paper boxes.

On those boxes is printed the slogan Buy ‘em by the “sack.” The double quote marks around “sack” are theirs, not mine. They are what is called “scare quotes.”

Scare quotes are usually found around very short phrases or around single words in order to call attention to those words in a negative way. They aren’t used to quote someone, they’re used to call into question whatever words are found within them. They instil doubt.

For example, in the movie Citizen Kane, scare quotes appear on the screen in a screaming newspaper headline, Candidate Kane Caught in Love Nest with “Singer.” Singer is in scare quotes as a way of suggesting that Kane’s sweetie, Susan Alexander, was little more than a floozy (a woman of loose morals) and not much of a singer.

White Castle, it turns out, has been using quotes around “sack” since at least the ’50s and probably longer. Because of the way the company uses them, I prefer to call them something other than scare quotes.

For one thing, they’re not really calling the word “sack” into question. There’s no scaring to be done, no fear to be instilled, no doubt to be sown. I suppose there are cheap laughs to be had by reading Buy ‘em by the “sack” as if the “sack” were only pretending to be a sack but is instead something else, like a tugboat or a banana. That’s the kind of intentional misunderstanding you have to make in order to think that those quotes around “sack” shouldn’t be there.

They belong there because the company is calling attention to the word. “Sack”, perhaps, wasn’t a word that everyone would use. Some might prefer “bag”, since “sack” historically has been much less used in some parts of the United States to refer to the folded paper container your purchases are packed into at the grocery store.

So if they’re not scare quotes around “sack”, what are they?

I suggest the term shout quotes. And I suggest that the use of quotations for emphasis be condoned for casual use by all language authorities: hired, self-appointed, or otherwise.

There’s a weblog called the “Blog of Unnecessary Quotation Marks” and on the photo-sharing website Flickr, there’s a fantastic picture pool called “quote abuse.” Both mock the use of quotes used to emphasise or draw attention to a word.

But as examples on both sites show, there are proper, natural, widely understood rules behind using shout quotes, even if they’re taught in no grammar or style book that I can find.

They’re appropriate when you have no other easy way to indicate emphasis. They’re appropriate when used, for example, in casual sign-making. They’re appropriate when bolding or underlining is not possible. They’re appropriate when used by people who don’t do typesetting for a living.

One picture shows a handwritten sign that says, “Sorry”, but there will be no pumpkin soup served today!

Well, for lame laughs, we could assume those are scare quotes and that the writer meant they weren’t really sorry. But that’s an uncharitable reading. The only way you could truthfully assume that the sorry was insincere would be to also assume that the sign-writer was incapable of even the simplest lie about being sorry. Clearly, with the shout quotes, the sign-writer meant that “sorry” was to be emphasised. Perhaps the pumpkin soup is extraordinary and they really were sorry it was not being served.

The intentional misreading of the shout quotes as scare quotes does grow rather thin. The sign that says We Love “Sushi” makes one commenter on Flickr wonder whether the sign-maker meant “cat” in place of “sushi.” See, if “sushi” is in quotes it must mean that the word is dubious, right? Maybe they’re selling cat-meat instead of fish?

No! They just wanted to emphasise the word “sushi.” Very simple. You have to go out of your way to get it wrong.

A truck door that says our drivers are “safe” drivers could make you wonder whether that company does indeed define “safe” differently from everyone else—besides leaving you wondering who they are trying to convince, when safe-driving behaviour alone should do the trick.

But of course, all they meant to do was to emphasise the word “safe”, in much the same way that in sign after sign, “do not” or “please” are put inside shout quotes that emphasise the strongest sentiments of their authors.

I endorse the use of quotation marks for emphasis, even in extreme cases. One example I collected is of a sign in a bar advertising half-off bottles of beer during happy hours. There are four shout quotes, one in each corner, decorating the page as much as they are enclosing the text, but all of them emphasising the discount.

That perfect example of using quotes for emphasis is something I can drink to.

It’s what you might call service journalism, but it’s something I’ve been seeing a need to write for a while: How to buy a dictionary, my latest column in the Malaysia Star.

...

A popular question from English language-learners and native speakers alike is, “What dictionary should I use or buy?”

There are many bad dictionaries. It’s difficult to tell what’s worth your money and time and what isn’t. So, let me offer you some ways that you can help distinguish the good dictionaries from the bad ones.

Use or buy two dictionaries.

The editorial guidelines of dictionaries can vary greatly. They control what words are included, how thorough the definitions are, what kind of special features are added, and for what reading level the text is written.

Just as two parents contribute something to the creation of every child, each dictionary will contribute different things to your understanding of English words.

Make sure they’re from two different publishers.

It’s not uncommon for publishers to repackage the same dictionary material into many different forms.

To be sure you are getting two truly different viewpoints on a word and its meaning, you need to use dictionaries that have different content. The best way to ensure that is to make sure they’re published by different companies.

Use a learner’s dictionary and a general-use dictionary.

Even further, you might do best to use one dictionary that is for learners and another that is intended for general use at home or the workplace. They have different goals and different content.

The learners’ dictionaries tend to have simpler definitions, more information about collocations (words that tend to appear together), more extra material like synonyms and antonyms, and fewer overall words.

General-use dictionaries tend to define more words, to include more etymological information, to include more encyclopaedic information (such as biographies of famous people), and they tend to be physically larger.

Make sure the book was recently published.

You need a dictionary that is current. Make sure it was published in the last five years.

Look for recent words.

Publishers will often republish dictionaries over decades without updating the material with new entries, or at the most with only the barest few new entries.

In the United States, it’s common to find cheap dictionaries for just a few dollars that claim to contain tens of thousand of words. They’re perfectly good dictionaries—except they don’t include words like Internet or computer or anything else that’s modern. They’re simply reselling old material.

Make sure the dictionaries you choose have other modern words that wouldn’t have been used more than two decades ago like weblog, blogosphere, hybrid car, text messaging, SMS, LOL, and other technical or recent words. Finding these will help ensure that the dictionary has been updated relatively recently.

Look for dirty words.

All parts of English are important, even those trouble-making words that are coarse, derogatory, or sexual. A good lexicographer will include the most common words of all kinds, including ones that can be troublesome.

If a dictionary’s editors have chosen to leave out words they consider offensive, we must also wonder what other words they have left out. What are their criteria for judging words to be offensive? Are they leaving out words that concern any religion but their own? Are they leaving out words that deal with political viewpoints they don’t support? Are they leaving out words simply because they think they’re ugly? Are they including words simply because they like them? Are they deleting insulting words for their own ethnic group and leaving in insulting words for other groups?

This may surprise you, but I usually recommend that parents give adult dictionaries to their children. It is important for children to get frank, matter-of-fact meanings for words rather than getting the wrong idea from other children, yet many children’s dictionaries don’t include these troublesome words.

Naughty words lose a lot of their power when they are explained in dry, ordinary dictionary definitions instead of accompanied by the giggle and wink of the playground. Children are also usually relieved that the words really are more boring and ordinary than they first sound.

Of course, by not listing the words here, I am assuming that you are an adult who already knows them. If you are a child, I encourage you to seek out a parent or other adult you respect. Ask them to explain these words in plain language, or better, ask them to show you a good dictionary in which you can look up the words for yourself.

Make sure there are sample sentences.

Lots of them. It is easier to learn the meaning of a word from sample sentences than it is from definitions. This is why learners’ dictionaries—those designed for students who are learning English—have so many of them.

Don’t be persuaded by superficial features.

Etymologies, for example, are interesting, but they are largely irrelevant when it comes to using a dictionary for schoolwork (unless you are specifically writing about word origins) or for preparing business reports.

Coloured text, too, is often not worth the extra money and colour photographs are a luxury unless the dictionary is primarily a picture dictionary.