Dictionaries are Not the Final Word on the Definitions of Words

[Sunstone]

There seems to be a somewhat popular notion that dictionaries define the "correct" or "proper" use of words. As it happens, that is far from the truth.

Lexicographers -- that is, people who compile dictionaries -- spend their days searching media such as books, magazines, websites, etc, for examples of how words are being used by you, the average person. Then they publish their findings as the definitions of those words -- usually with the most popular definitions coming first.

In other words, lexicographers do not publish -- or even attempt to publish -- the "correct" or "proper" usages of words, but rather the common or notable usages of words. As the language changes, so do the dictionaries. Ultimately, it is how people are using words that determines their dictionary definitions.

By the way, American dictionaries usually use for their pronunciation guides how words are pronounced in Iowa or Nebraska, because those are considered the most "neutral" accents. Just so you know.

 

[YmirGF]

There seems to be a somewhat popular notion that dictionaries define the "correct" or "proper" use of words. As it happens, that is far from the truth.

Lexicographers -- that is, people who compile dictionaries -- spend their days searching media such as books, magazines, websites, etc, for examples of how words are being used by you, the average person. Then they publish their findings as the definitions of those words -- usually with the most popular definitions coming first.

In other words, lexicographers do not publish -- or even attempt to publish -- the "correct" or "proper" usages of words, but rather the common or notable usages of words. As the language changes, so do the dictionaries. Ultimately, it is how people are using words that determines their dictionary definitions.

By the way, American dictionaries usually use for their pronunciation guides how words are pronounced in Iowa or Nebraska, because those are considered the most "neutral" accents. Just so you know.

I thought everyone understood this. Didn't know about the Iowa/Nebraska thingy though. Makes sense.

 

[Sunstone]

I thought everyone understood this. Didn't know about the Iowa/Nebraska thingy though. Makes sense.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But apparently not. People still offer dictionary definitions of words as if doing so obligates others to follow those definitions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I thought everyone understood this. Didn't know about the Iowa/Nebraska thingy though. Makes sense.

I'll be the first to be humble and admit that I learned something here. I didn't know...

A. That dictionary definition are a product of the most popular use of words.
2. That lexicographer was a job, let alone the job that does compilation of dictionaries.
​

Ironically, I did know about the Standard American English thingy.

 

[Sunstone]

A. That dictionary definition are a product of the most popular use of words.

I'm not sure if it still does, but at one time, the Oxford English Dictionary sought to include every unique usage of every word in the English language -- not just the most popular usages.

 

[Misunderstood]

If we are not to use the dictionary, what are we to use? As the English language is always changing I would think a dictionary that gives the most popular uses would be a good thing. That way we use words that most people will understand.

 

[YmirGF]

I'll be the first to be humble and admit that I learned something here. I didn't know...

A. That dictionary definition are a product of the most popular use of words.
2. That lexicographer was a job, let alone the job that does compilation of dictionaries.
​

Ironically, I did know about the Standard American English thingy.

Neato! I first ran into this a few years ago when I heard an interview with a lexicographer explaining the agonizing process they go through to both include new words and delete archaic words. Like most things... it's a lot more complicated than one might imagine. LOL. It was a fascinating 1/2 hour.

Given that language, be nature, is fluid and dynamic, I'm not so sure one could arrive at a "definitive" dictionary, thereby making the "most popular definitions" the logical choice to build the book(s) around. Going the "definitive" route one would likely go mad before they finished the first volume.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Neato! I first ran into this a few years ago when I heard an interview with a lexicographer explaining the agonizing process they go through to both include new words and delete archaic words. Like most things... it's a lot more complicated than one might imagine. LOL. It was a fascinating 1/2 hour.

Given that language, be nature, is fluid and dynamic, I'm not so sure one could arrive at a "definitive" dictionary, thereby making the "most popular definitions" the logical choice to build the book(s) around. Going the "definitive" route one would likely go mad before they finished the first volume.

It would be ideal of all that spoke a particular language could agree on a definition of its terms. But I suppose that would be akin to asking for the same to agree on a unified belief structure.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would be interested, however, to hear from one that is fluent in Sanskrit. It is my understanding that there are far more specific terms and that these terms are less subject to interpretation.

 

[Earthling]

I think I learned that they gave the use of words in middle school, but the Iowa / Nebraska point is something new for me.

While I agree with the former it is, at the same time, our only guide which we are somewhat obligated to follow, is it not? I may know the history, the etymology of a word but it doesn't mean a tinker's cuss if it isn't in agreement with the possible variations of the most popular definitions. Words can have different meanings even in the same period of time, as well as, of course, different times. While it's true we have to take into account those variations it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility that those uses are wrong.

That would be a tricky point to establish in debate though. By what authority? The dictionary.

 

[crossfire]

I like dictionaries. I also like etymology--especially when reading old texts to get the added sense of how word meanings change, and what was meant by the word in the historical context when it was written and/or translated.

 

[SomeRandom]

I vastly prefer the descriptive approach lexicographers take. Allows the language to breathe properly, IMO. My cousin is an English teacher and is annoyingly prescriptive, even during family dinners. I mean he's fun, but the mind games. Ughh.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If we are not to use the dictionary, what are we to use? As the English language is always changing I would think a dictionary that gives the most popular uses would be a good thing. That way we use words that most people will understand.

It depends on intent, IMHO.
If you're trying to determine what people are likely to understand a word to mean, or (conversely) what people likely mean by it, then the dictionary is valid and useful.

If you're using it to check whether you might need to more fully explain your own terms of reference, then it's valid and useful.

If you're using it to work out who is 'right', then you're misusing it.

Having said that, if someone is using 'priceless' to describe something that is in fact worthless, a dictionary based correction seems appropriate.

As always, context matters.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I vastly prefer the descriptive approach lexicographers take. Allows the language to breathe properly, IMO. My cousin is an English teacher and is annoyingly prescriptive, even during family dinners. I mean he's fun, but the mind games. Ughh.

If you want some help messing with his head, let me know. I'm petty enough to enjoy that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

By the way, American dictionaries usually use for their pronunciation guides how words are pronounced in Iowa or Nebraska, because those are considered the most "neutral" accents. Just so you know.

Whereas Apple used an Australian for the original Siri, because we clearly speak most properish and stuff.
Suck eggs, world.

 

[Valjean]

If we are not to use the dictionary, what are we to use? As the English language is always changing I would think a dictionary that gives the most popular uses would be a good thing. That way we use words that most people will understand.

There are various hip, avant gard usages, some of which will be incorporated into the vernacular. There is the vernacular, which is nebulous and dynamic, and there is technical usage; more stable and used when semantic precision is important; when ambiguity or interpretation are problematic.
"Proper" usage depends on context.
As Sunstone pointed out, popular dictionaries are descriptive, though many do include some etymology, to let you know some history of the term.

I would be interested, however, to hear from one that is fluent in Sanskrit. It is my understanding that there are far more specific terms and that these terms are less subject to interpretation.

That's because dead languages are easy to formalize, it's easy to declare a 'proper' definition of a static term.

 

[SomeRandom]

If you want some help messing with his head, let me know. I'm petty enough to enjoy that.

Yes please!!!!

 

[sun rise]

Many seem to follow the Humpty Dumpty definition authority point-of-view:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

 

[Revoltingest]

I like dictionaries. I also like etymology--especially when reading old texts to get the added sense of how word meanings change, and what was meant by the word in the historical context when it was written and/or translated.

So do I.
I bet you'd be vexed by a friend....he believes that language is a fixed thing,
so he likes to use very old dictionaries....from the 1800s & sometimes early
1900s. Where modern definitions conflict, they're just WRONG!!!!
As I see it, dictionaries show the most common usages (& some uncommon
ones). So there's danger in using something other than what most expect,
unless an arcane context is clear.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So do I.
I bet you'd be vexed by a friend....he believes that language is a fixed thing,
so he likes to use very old dictionaries....from the 1800s & sometimes early
1900s. Where modern definitions conflict, they're just WRONG!!!!
As I see it, dictionaries show the most common usages (& some uncommon
ones). So there's danger in using something other than what most expect,
unless an arcane context is clear.

Ooof...your friend is English speaking? Because it's one of the most clear languages in terms of words having bastardized backgrounds and fluid meanings.