My name is Terry Anderson.I am quite delighted to have come across this discussion board. I am currently writing an essay on urban slang and therefore am rather hoping to glean some knowledge from the exchanges in this forum. The other day, I was reading an article on Daniel Cassidy and his highly imaginative work 'How the Irish Invented Slang'. I must say, I have not read anything as sloppily done as this book. Unfortunately, Mr. Cassidy, with his rather defensive and so-called maligned writer's attitude, seems to be out of touch with erudition and scholarly approach. It is unfortunate to see that such books claim what they are not, and that simply by going beyond the cover, one can come across numerous pitfalls.
I am afraid this phenomenon can sometimes apply to more popular and highly praised dictionaries. Upon close inspection (due to the nature of my current research), Cassell's Dictionary Of Slang, by Jonathon Green, 2005 Edition, shows numerous instances of wrong information or mis-information. In overall, It is rather a good dictionary, however, it is not entirely what it claims to be. There are many instances of inclusion of dialect (In addition to the problems of eymology and dating, sometimes off by a couple of centuries!), mostly British dialect. I have included a couple of examples hereinafter.I think that including such information can be mis-leading and should be avoided.
The following two examples have been included in Cassell's Dictionary of Slang by Jonathon Green. Now, according to OED (Oxford English Dictionary), they are dialectical. Here is what OED has to say:
blether, blather, v.
Sc. and north. dial.
[ME. blather, a. ON. bla ra to talk stupidly, f. bla r nonsense. Blather is the etymological form, blether being Sc. and north. Eng. (like gether = gather etc.). But in mod.Eng., the word is generally accepted as Scotch (from Burns, Scott, Carlyle, etc.) and in the Scotch form....1. intr. To talk nonsense loquaciously.
blink, v.
10. To look upon with the evil eye, to bewitch. Sc. and Irish. Cf. 7a.
1880 W. H. PATTERSON Gloss. Antrim & Down 9 Cow's milk is said to be blinked when it does not produce butter, in consequence of some supposed charm having been worked.
Terry, I agree with you about Cassidy's work. Read my review of his book here.
The definition of slang is one that has been much-debated. There is still, in my opinion, no completely satisfactory definition. Certainly the mainstream dictionaries define it rather incompletely or badly. Professional lexicographers like Jonathon Green (whom I know professionally) determine for their own purposes what "slang" is and is not and then they work within that definition.
So, what the Oxford English Dictionary defines as dialect might be argued to be slang by other lexicographers, especially when, as in the case of blether/blather, it appears in the language of people outside of the group from which it derived. OED, in any case, is by no means infallible, though it is the best we have so far for many words.
As far as errors in the Cassell work go, well, it happens. If you find errors, I encourage you to send them to Jonathon. He is currently at work on an even larger multivolume slang publication and I'm sure he would welcome any new information. Email me off the forum and I will pass you his email address.
Dear Mr Grant,
Since our only way (perhaps regrettably) to determine whether a term can be classified as slang or otherwise is through the first recorded examples, therefore I must disagree with you, I am afraid.
Since, the cites regarding the above examples are purely dialectical, therefore, they should be treated as such. OED and other great dictionaries are perhaps the only means by which we can determine the category to which a word belongs. Whether 'fallible' or not, they have proved to be the bench mark of accuracy and reliability,and the arbiter by which disputes are settled.
I thoroughly enjoy your site.
I am afraid I can not reveal further information about my findings regarding the errors (e.g.classifications, etymology, dating) which, as I have mentioned, exist in Mr. Green's dictionary. I am afraid I am a bit of a back-room boy, so to speak, and at this point, can not go into detail about my work. All I can say is that there are numerous mistakes in Mr.Green's book which, in my view, are rather typical and can somehow indicate that the author has not, with due respect, spent sufficient time on conducting his research thoroughly, leading me to believe that he (as is usually the case with anyone gathering data) has heavily relied upon a handful of predecessors, who, in turn, have made errors. Therefore, the mis-information has not been detected and has been perpetuated.
What was begun by the great John S. Farmer over a century ago as a scholarly approach to the subject of slang seems to have now sadly fallen victim to the dictates of the marker-place and competition. Only a close look at the two-volume New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2006) can prove this point. Sadly, this great heritage of the late Eric Partridge has not been immune from these inroads and influences either, that is, beating the rivals, being a market-leader, and so on. The result is a rushed book rife with incorrect etymologies, or no etymologies at all, huge gaps between the dates (sometimes wrong) and the citations provided, and lots and lots of mis-spellings in head-words, citations, definitions (Eric Partridge must be turning in his grave!). At the end of the day, what we often see are books that are endorsed by a bunch of newspapers and laypeople who are only too pleased and ready to oblige by jumping on the band-wagon, showering their praise on them without even bothering to look closely at what they actually are praising. This is what I call the the ‘two-thumbs up' syndrome.
After years of back-room research (once a pastime and now a serious passion), one thing has become clear to me. Due to the elusive nature of slang, certain changes in the way a slang lexicographer conducts his/her research (should he or she wish to create a scholarly work, and not just a book for general consumption) should be introduced.
I am fully familiar with Mr Green's books and have read them all, as part of what I have embarked upon. I have also heard about his ongoing multi-volume dictionary for over a year. I must also add that, at this point, my knowledge of the subject-matter extends far beyond Mr. Green's works, OED and the other slang dictionaries, and am hoping to share it with others someday.
Terry Anderson
Terry, with all due respect, you may very well be a slang expert but I've never heard of you. Perhaps that's what you mean by “back-room” boy. As far as I know, I am either personally or professionally acquainted with all the North American and and British lexicographers who could be classified as slang experts, either through having worked with them, having trained with them, having met them socially or professionally, through having read their academic papers, or from using their dictionaries in the course of doing my own. I don't know who you are.
Certainly, given the naive views that you have posted here and on the Leicester slang list, I doubt whether you could be said to be a slang expert, much less a professional lexicographer.
For example, your persistence in criticizing the work of others in general terms without giving specifics leaves you looking rather petulant. The burden of proof is upon you. The ordinary practice is to back up one's critiques with solid examples. So far, you have provided only generalities.
For another example, your reverence for Eric Partridge's work is rather mystifying, especially given the amount that has been written about the weaknesses and failures of his work. It is well-known by the slang lexicographers that I know that Partridge is not to be trusted on any point. You must verify everything that you find in his works if you are to use it in your own. I can pull any of the editions of DSUE off my shelf, even the eighth which also saw the hand of Paul Beale, and find many errors per page. That said, Partridge does often have valuable information that can be found nowhere else and that can be substantiated.
Another example is your claim that “whether a term can be classified as slang or otherwise is through the first recorded examples.” First you must define slang before you can go identifying slang through citations! “I know it when I see it” may be the practice of some, but I would encourage you to read Bethany Dumas and Jonathan Lighter's paper “Is Slang a Word for Linguists?” in American Speech. It is good starting point for developing a reasonable definition of what slang is.
As I wrote above, each lexicographer defines slang (or dialect) for his own purposes. The definition used by OED, Partridge, Green, and the Historical Dictionary of American Slang are different and each justifiable in their own ways. So those works should be judged according the lexicographer's tendency to stay within the boundaries of his own definition of slang rather than by some definition that you the reader bring.
In any case, what about later citations? What about the transition through registers over time? Words don't necessarily persist in being slang or dialect. First citations might only record the early days of a term before its common usage was fixed and widespread.
Still another example is your undue reverence of OED. Though I believe it to be the greatest English-language dictionary, I also know that it is the most corrected. As the leading work, it is, as it should be, continuously questioned, debunked, falsified, and verified. OED lexicographers will tell you that it is an ordinary occurrence to find errors in the work: incorrect dates, typographical errors, misspellings, mistranscriptions, and so forth. I have found them (and reported them) myself. Yet, I use and trust the dictionary all of the time.
In the case of Jonathon Green, well, he does not need my defense. If you have only heard of his multivolume slang work for a year, then you are indeed an outsider, as it has been underway for years. I hope I am not speaking out of school when I tell you that I have seen early drafts of some pages and they give me hope that it will be a landmark work of lexicography.
The other thing I think I can say is that I have no doubt that Jonathon is aware of any shortcomings of the second edition of Cassell's Dictionary of Slang. All good lexicographers are aware of the compromises they have had to make due to deadlines and fiscal constraints. If there were only one more chance at proofing or line-reading, or a little more time to search more databases, or just one more person to send to the library to verify a fact. There are limits and good lexicographers—including my colleagues at OED—know they must recognize when they have, first, reached the point of diminishing returns, and, second, reached the point of “good enough.” There's no such thing as a perfect work of lexicography.
Another example is your complaint about the dictates of the marketplace. Of course the marketplace matters! The penury of lexicographers is well-known. They must, unless they are independently wealthy, find a way to make their products palatable to the larger public so that their efforts will eventually see the light of day. Deep-pocketed anonymous sponsors are not currently abundant.
One need look no further than the unfinished Historical Dictionary of American Slang (on which I toiled for three years with Dr. Lighter) to see that it is difficult to find the money, time, and manpower to finish a substantial lexicography project of high quality. Good lexicography requires funding and in most cases that funding comes from publishers, for-profit and otherwise, who must pay attention to what is marketable. So a lexicographer must be a practical, reasonable person, prone to compromise and conciliation. They must have a great sense of humor and an appreciation of irony. These traits will carry them through the tedium and chores required to output a high-quality dictionary in face of the best and worst efforts of the publishers with which they have contracted. These traits will also give them new appreciation for the imperfect work of their colleagues.