Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

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.

No response needed, really, Wordsmith. We're all now in wait-and-see mode. When Mr. Anderson has produced his works, we'll judge them according to the standards he has set for himself.