The Actual and the Ideal in the Making of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary

Abstract

As far as I know, few critics have perceived the modernity of Samuel Johnson's linguistic theorizings as wirnessed in two principal documents: "The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language" (1747) and the "Preface" to A Dictionary of the English Language (1755).' W. K. Wimsatt, for instance, simply disqualifies as a question of style Johnson's "severe" canon of correctness in vocabulary. But propriety involves usage, and proper usage is vitiated by contingency. In fact, Johnson himself declares that he does "not form, but register the language" only; he does "not teach men how they should think but relate how they have hitherto expressed their thoughts." This empirical approach seems to be demanded, or imposed, by experimental prudence. Actually, it tends to counteract his prescriptive and reformatory objective in the aim of establishing a standard of good and correct English usage. For the dictionary will be designed to fulfil the functions of a technical instrument "by which the pronunciation of our language may be fixed, and its attainment facilitated; by which its purity may be preserved, its use ascertained, and its duration lengthened." Such a purpose unquestionably conforms to the general neoclassical ideals of order, stability, and respect for tradition.