Abstract
ABSTRACT: Reviews and press coverage of Webster's Third New International Dictionary ( W3 ) have been used as proxies for dictionary users' beliefs and practices since the 1960s. Critics of W3 portrayed dictionary users as passively acquiescent to dictionary authority. Language scholars interpreted the widespread criticism of W3 in the popular press as evidence of a "cultural lag" between the public's understanding of language and basic principles of lexicography and linguistics. The controversy surrounding W3 in turn has come to be used as evidence of the American public's desire for dictionaries to provide absolute, prescriptive guidance about usage. This understanding of dictionary use is complicated by the existence of boycotts and protests, which suggest critical, nuanced engagement with dictionaries. Using a set of protest letters sent to Merriam-Webster between 1961 and 1963 as an entry point, this article reconsiders existing narratives about public engagement with W3 . Archival materials indicate that when discussing dictionaries in the abstract, letter writers echo criticisms of W3 from the press, focusing on a desire for prescriptive guidance. However, some writers simultaneously offer nuanced observations about language and express openness to evidence-based lexicography. When recounting their personal use of dictionaries, letter writers also focus on issues other than usage. The letters indicate that the press coverage of W3 reflected beliefs about dictionary authority in the abstract but did not fully capture how members of the public used dictionaries.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call