Johnson's and Webster's Verbal Examples: With Special Reference to Examplifying Usage in Dictionary Entries (Lexicographica)

Johnson's and Webster's Verbal Examples

Kusujiro Miyoshi

Max Niemeyer Verlag

L E X IC O G R A PH IC A Series Maior Supplementary Volumes to the International Annual for Lexicography Suppl!ments " la Revue Internationale de Lexicographie Supplementb&nde zum Internationalen Jahrbuch f)r Lexikographie

Edited by Pierre Corbin, Reinhard R. K. Hartmann, Franz Josef Hausmann, Ulrich Heid, Sven-Gçran Malmgren, Oskar Reichmann 132

Published in cooperation with the Dictionary Society of North America (DSNA) and the European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX)

Kusujiro Miyoshi

Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples With Special Reference to Exemplifying Usage in Dictionary Entries

Max Niemeyer Verlag T)bingen 2007

n

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet ber http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-484-39132-1

ISSN 0175-9264

) Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tbingen 2007 Ein Imprint der Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG http://www.niemeyer.de Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschtzt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzul=ssig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere fr Vervielf=ltigungen, >bersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf alterungsbest=ndigem Papier. Druck: Laupp & Gçbel GmbH, Nehren Einband: N=dele Verlags- und Industriebuchbinderei, Nehren

Acknowledgements

In publishing my Ph.D. thesis, I want to express my deepest gratitude and most sincere respect to Professor Dr. Reinhard Hartmann, the late Professor Emeritus Haruo Kozu and Dr. Daisaku Ikeda. First and foremost, I appreciate how fortunate I was to do research in lexicography under the supervision of Professor Hartmann, who is Honorary University Fellow at University of Exeter and Honorary Professor at University of Birmingham. This thesis could not have been completed without his continuous encouragement, valuable advice and patience throughout the years of my graduate studies at University of Exeter. I remember his first guidance which began with the maxim “Problems are there to be solved”. Actually, I faced one challenge after another as I proceeded with my research, and on such occasions, Professor Hartmann consistently helped me overcome the challenges with his academic insight which often amazed me. In particular, I am especially appreciative of his encouraging advice which was given to me during our discussion on a snowy evening in 2004. It was when I became worried, wondering if I could finalize my thesis, and with this advice I regained my energy to carry on my research. The kindness he showed me at that time will remain in my memory for a long time, with the poetic atmosphere of the place where we were then, a quiet, dimly-lit restaurant close to Exeter’s famous Cathedral. The late Professor Kozu, who taught English Philology at Kansai University of Foreign Studies, first introduced me to research in English and American lexicography; my interest in Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster was nurtured under his inspirational guidance in the early 1980’s. His words of academic advice and encouragement, most of which I still remember, had been invaluable for me to continue my research until I became Professor Hartmann’s supervisee in 2000. (How I wish Professor Kozu were still with us, and I could present him with this book!) Dr. Ikeda is the founder of Soka University and Soka Women's College. The experience of being a Ph.D. student at University of Exeter, working full-time in Tokyo, was a “once in a lifetime adventure” to me; I was then Associate Professor at Soka Women’s College. I feel very happy to have successfully accomplished it. However, I could not have said these words without Dr. Ikeda’s continuous moral support. In addition, he has been conferred with honorary doctorates and the title of Professor Emeritus by a total of more than two hundred universities around the world, including Moscow State University, University of Glasgow and University of Denver. In this situation, he heartily congratulated me for the completion of my doctorate with the recognition that it is significant in my life. Besides Professor Hartmann, Professor Kozu and Dr. Ikeda, I also owe my appreciation to many other people whose contributions range from technical advice to general support and encouragement. Dr. Bob Lawson-Peebles at University of Exeter and Dr. Terry Hoad at Oxford University perused my thesis as its examiners, giving me critical, yet valuable and constructive advice. Many of my friends, including those I made the acquaintance of in Exeter, assisted me during the years when I worked on the project. (I also want to thank my mother, father, wife and two sons for the same reason.) And the publication of this book has come to be realized with the cooperation of Ms. Margarete Trinks and Ms. Birgitta Zeller at Max Niemeyer Verlag. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to each of these persons.

Table of Contents

List of Tables....................................................................................................................... XI Abbreviations and Special Conventions Used in the Thesis............................................. XIII 1: Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Background to the Project................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purposes of the Research ......................................................................................... 2 1.3 The Linguistic Foundation of the Thesis.................................................................. 6 1.4 Johnson’s View of Language and the English Language......................................... 6 1.4.1 Overview of Problems in the Analyses to Date ............................................ 6 1.4.2 Formulation of Johnson’s View of Language............................................... 7 1.4.3 Problems in Investigating Johnson’s Verbal Examples to Date.................. 10 1.4.4 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 15 1.5 Webster’s View of Language and the English Language ...................................... 15 1.5.1 His Strong Language Awareness ................................................................ 15 1.5.2 The Formulation of Webster’s View of Language ..................................... 16 1.5.3 Fundamentals of Webster’s View of Language as Revealed in His Dictionary .................................................................... 20 1.5.4 Webster’s Study of Etymology................................................................... 22 1.5.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 27 2: Methodology.................................................................................................................. 29 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 29 2.2 Selecting an Appropriate Edition of Johnson’s Dictionary.................................... 29 2.3 Adopting a Sampling Method ................................................................................ 31 2.4 Adopting a Statistical Method in the Analysis of Selected Entries ........................ 32 2.5 Selecting Books on Grammar to Be Based on in the Analysis of Their Verbal Examples ...................................................................................... 34 2.6 Distinguishing Citations and Invented Examples .................................................. 35 2.7 Finding a Solution to the Problem of Authorship of Some Works ........................ 38 2.8 Selecting an Appropriate Version of the English Bible ......................................... 40 3: The Historical Background of Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries........................... 42 3.1 Johnson’s Dictionary and Two Continental Dictionaries ...................................... 42 3.1.1 Johnson’s Recognition of the Two Dictionaries ......................................... 42 3.1.2 Methods for Comparing the Dictionaries.................................................... 44 3.1.3 Ways of Dividing Entries ........................................................................... 44 3.1.4 Ways of Supplying Verbal Examples ......................................................... 46 3.1.5 Information on Verbal Inflections in the Dictionaries ................................ 47 3.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 48 3.2 Johnson’s Dictionary and Priestley’s Grammars ................................................... 49 3.2.1 Three Perspectives on Johnson’s Treatment of English Grammar ............. 49 3.2.2 Johnson and Two Leading Grammarians in the Eighteenth Century.......... 50

VIII 3.2.3 A Change in Priestley’s Opinion about Johnson’s Dictionary ................... 51 3.2.4 The Influence of Johnson’s Dictionary on Priestley................................... 52 3.2.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 55 3.3 Webster’s Dictionary and American Education..................................................... 55 3.3.1 The Prevailing Attitudes to the Historical Background of Webster’s Dictionary.............................................................................. 55 3.3.2 The Historical Facts against the Prevailing Perspective ............................. 56 3.3.3 American Aspects of Webster’s Dictionary ............................................... 57 3.3.4 Dictionaries in Demand among Americans during the Nineteenth Century .................................................................................................................... 61 3.3.5 The American Educational Situation in Its Early Period ............................ 62 3.3.6 The Continuity of the American Lexicographic Tradition.......................... 64 3.3.7 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 65 4: Johnson's and Webster's Usual Practices in Supplying Verbal Examples ..................... 67 4.1 Johnson’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations ................................................ 67 4.1.1 An Apparent Contradiction between Johnson’s Principles and Practice .... 67 4.1.2 Johnson’s Statements on His Selection of Entry-words ............................. 71 4.1.3 A Solution to the Apparent Contradiction .................................................. 72 4.2 Johnson’s Citations as Substitutes for Definitions ................................................. 73 4.2.1 Some Typical Examples ............................................................................. 73 4.2.2 Johnson's Motivation behind Substituting Citations for Definitions .......... 74 4.3 Webster’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations................................................ 76 4.3.1 A Problem of Widely Accepted Opinions .................................................. 76 4.3.2 Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations............................................... 76 4.3.3 Citations from American Authors............................................................... 80 4.4 Webster’s Invented Verbal Examples .................................................................... 81 4.5 Biblical Citations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries .................................. 83 4.5.1 A Problem with the Perspectives to Date.................................................... 83 4.5.2 An Overview of Webster’s Practice of Supplying Biblical Citations ......... 84 4.5.3 Webster’s Exclusion of Johnson’s Biblical Citations ................................. 85 4.5.4 Webster’s Addition of Biblical Citations.................................................... 89 4.5.5 Webster’s Biblical Citations Substituted for Johnson’s.............................. 91 4.5.6 Webster’s Biblical Citations Borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary........... 94 4.5.7 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 99 5: Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency and the Inflected Forms of Such Verbs............................................................................... 101 5.1 Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency ................................... 101 5.1.1 An Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Verbs of High Frequency ..................................................................... 101 5.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency................................ 104 5.1.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Biblical Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency .................................................... 107

IX 5.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Citations from Sources Other than the Bible in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency ................... 114 5.1.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 119 5.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency................................................................................. 120 5.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency ................................. 120 5.2.2 Examples for Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Inflected Forms of Verbs ................................................................ 122 5.2.3 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 126 6: Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions and Prepositional Adverbs..................... 127 6.1 Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions ........................................................ 127 6.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Prepositions ........... 127 6.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions ......................................................................... 133 6.1.3 Johnson’s Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions ................... 136 6.1.4 Webster’s Biblical Citations in Entries on Prepositions ........................... 141 6.1.5 Other Characteristics of Webster’s Use of Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions in His Dictionary ............................................ 143 6.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 146 6.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ........................................ 147 6.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Prepositional Adverbs .......................................................................... 147 6.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ......................................................... 147 6.2.3 Johnson’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ............ 148 6.2.4 Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ............ 151 6.2.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 156 7: Verbal Examples for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations........ 157 7.1 The Purpose of This Chapter................................................................................ 157 7.2 Survey of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Collocations..................... 158 7.3 Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Agreement ....... 160 7.4 Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Disagreement... 163 7.5 Webster’s Interest in Indicating the Collocations ................................................ 168 7.6 Generalization of the Analysis ............................................................................. 170 8: Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries and Primary Verbs ..................................................................... 171 8.1 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries.................... 171 8.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries .. 171 8.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries on the Modal Auxiliaries Shall and Will................................................... 174 8.1.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries on the Modal Auxiliaries Should and Would ............................................ 178

X 8.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries on the Modal Auxiliaries May, Can, Might and Could............................. 183 8.1.5 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries on the Modal Auxiliary Must.................................................................... 186 8.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 187 8.2 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Primary Verbs.......................... 188 8.2.1 The Characteristics of Primary Verbs and the Procedure of the Analysis ............................................................ 188 8.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Primary Verbs...................................................................... 189 8.2.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on the Inflected Forms of Primary Verbs.................................................. 192 8.2.4 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 195 9: Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 197 9.1 Outline ................................................................................................................. 197 9.2 Reflections on the Process of the Analyses.......................................................... 197 9.2.1 Discoveries in the Preliminary Survey...................................................... 197 9.2.2 Reflections on the Main Types of Analysis .............................................. 199 9.2.3 Facts and Questions about Johnson’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples ................................................................. 199 9.2.4 Facts and Questions about Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples ................................................................. 201 9.2.5 Ways of Answering the Questions............................................................ 203 9.2.6 Summarizing Johnson’s and Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples ................................................................. 204 9.3 Specific Facts Concerning Webster’s Unique Lexicographic Practices............... 206 9.3.1 Historical Background to Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ............. 206 9.3.2 Webster’s Modifications to the Structure of Entries in Johnson’s Dictionary ............................................................................ 206 9.3.3 Difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s Views on Usage ............... 208 9.3.4 The Modernity of Webster’s View of Usage ............................................ 209 9.3.5 Webster’s Development of Johnson’s Treatment of Words and Phrases ............................................................................... 210 9.3.6 Webster’s Use of Johnson’s Citations ...................................................... 211 9.3.7 Webster’s Invented Examples................................................................... 212 9.4 Final Remarks and New Horizons of Research.................................................... 213 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 214 I Cited Dictionaries and Other Sources...................................................................... 214 II Cited Books and Papers........................................................................................... 215 Indices ............................................................................................................................... 220 Index of Personsonal Names........................................................................................ 220 Index of Words ............................................................................................................ 222

List of Tables

Table 1: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary .................................................................................................. 67 Table 2: Sources of Citations Substituted for Definitions in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary ....................................... 74 Table 3: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Webster’s Dictionary .................................................................................................. 77 Table 4: Biblical Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries........................................................................ 85 Table 5: Biblical Citations from the Original Source in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Webster's Dictionary ....................................... 89 Table 6: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 101 Table 7: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 104 Table 8: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Webster’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 106 Table 9: Biblical Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 107 Table 10: Biblical Citations in Sub-entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 108 Table 11: Entries on the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 120 Table 12: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 127 Table 13: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary.......... 133 Table 14: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary ......... 135 Table 15: Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary ...... 136 Table 16: Invented Examples in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary ........... 146 Table 17: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 147 Table 18: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs in Johnson’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 148 Table 19: Verbal Examples Supplied for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ................................................. 158 Table 20: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s Dictionary ........................................ 159 Table 21: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations in Webster’s Dictionary ........................................ 160 Table 22: Johnson’s and Webster’s View of Modal Auxiliaries ....................................... 172 Table 23: Citations and Invented Examples in Sub-entries on Modal Auxiliaries in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries .................................. 173 Table 24: Sources of Johnson’s Citations in Sub-entries on Modal Auxiliaries................ 174

XII Table 25: Johnson’s Practice in Supplying Citations by Types of Entries ........................ 200 Table 26: Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples by Types of Entries ........... 202

Abbreviations and Special Conventions Used in the Thesis

1.

Abbreviations in the Text

AV The Authorized Version of the English Bible COBUILD Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary COD The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English OALD Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary OED The Oxford English Dictionary v.i. intransitive verb v.t. transitive verb 2.

Johnson’s Abbreviations

adj. adjective adv. adverb conj. conjunction interj. interjection n.s. substantive noun part. participle particip. pass. passive participle part. preter. preterite participle prep. preposition pret. preterite preter. preterite. pron. pronoun v.a. active verb v. defective defective verb v.n. neuter verb 3.

Webster’s Abbreviations

a. adjective adv. adverb Arm. Armoric con. conjunction Eng. English Fr. French It. Italian n. noun Obs. Obsolete part. perf. perfect participle pp. preterite participle ppr. present participle

XIV prep. preposition pret. preterite verb aux. auxiliary verb v.i. intransitive verb v.t. transitive verb n.s as z. (used to label the headword ‘leasing’) not known 4.

Other Markings and Conventions

(Johnson 1755: n. pag. [2nd (par. 17) in the “Preface”]) When citing passages from sources in which the number of pages is not indicated, I adopted this type of form. In this example, ‘n. pag.’ indicates ‘no page number’, ‘2nd’ ‘2nd page’, ‘par. 17’ ‘17th paragraph’ and ‘the “Preface”’ ‘the “Preface” to the Dictionary’. K.M. When inserting my comments in passages where original authors used square brackets, I put this abbreviation which stands for my own name. J: To BEAR. v.a. 2. I have used this form in comparing the contents of entries in Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries. In this example, ‘J’ indicates ‘Johnson’s entry’, ‘To BEAR’ the headword, ‘v.a.’ the abbreviation of the part of speech which Johnson used as a grammatical label, ‘2’ the number of relevant sub-entries. Indication of Personal Names I have indicated the first names of authorities when they appear for the first time in each sub-section. As to those of historic grammarians and linguists and those of persons who are sources of Johnson's and Webster's citations, I indicated them when they appear for the first time in the text. Treatment of Clerical Errors in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries In quoting Johnson's and Webster's statements and verbal examples, I have copied their clerical errors, including their misspellings, as they are, not using the indication ‘(sic)’.

1:

Introduction

1.1

The Background to the Project

In April 1980, when I became a master’s course student majoring in English studies, I began studying the history of American lexicography on the recommendation of my supervisor then, namely the late Professor Emeritus Haruo Kozu at Kansai University of Foreign Studies in Osaka, Japan. This was my first opportunity to investigate Webster’s Dictionary. I was engaged in the study for two years, and it produced a master’s dissertation entitled ‘A study of American English dictionaries with special reference to Noah Webster’ (Miyoshi 1982). In this dissertation, I especially surveyed the historical background of Webster’s Dictionary. After that, I gradually became interested in Johnson as a lexicographer whose Dictionary was generally regarded as an indispensable source for Webster in compiling his Dictionary. And I wrote several articles concerning Johnson’s Dictionary, such as ‘Priestley no eibunten to Johnson no eigojiten’ (‘Priestley’s Rudiments and Johnson’s Dictionary’) (1987), ‘Johnson no jiten: yourei no gogakushiteki igi’ (‘Johnson’s Dictionary: The linguistic significance of its citations’) (1989), ‘S. Johnson to tairiku no gengo academy: hin’yodoshi no koumoku wo chushin ni’ (‘The influence of continental language academies on S. Johnson: His treatment of verbs of high frequency’) (1997). However, my interest in Webster’s Dictionary never waned. Eight years after my master’s dissertation, I wrote an article dealing with his biblical citations, ‘A linguistic approach to Webster’s quotations from the Bible’ (1990). As its title shows, I discussed Webster’s use of biblical citations in relation to his view of the language used in it. By the time I wrote this article, I had already become dubious of two prevailing perspectives about Webster. One is that Webster underestimated the value of verbal examples, and the other is that his Dictionary is essentially encyclopaedic and provides little information on the language. Besides, it seemed quite strange that the books and articles comparing Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries that I had read had hardly referred to the first edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, making it difficult to clarify the similarities and differences between Johnson’s and Webster’s original view of the language as well as their original practices in supplying verbal examples. Furthermore, it also seemed strange that the bibliographies in those works rarely listed James Sledd and Gwin Kolb’s Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary: Essays in the Biography of a Book (1955), De Witt Starnes and Gertrude Noyes’s The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson, 1604-1755 (which was originally published in 1946) and other critically important reference books in the assessment of Johnson’s Dictionary. For these reasons, I strongly felt that it was necessary that Webster’s Dictionary should be collated with the first edition of Johnson’s Dictionary so that their respective views of the language and practices in supplying verbal examples might be clarified. However, I had not been able to begin a comparative analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries from this standpoint until 2000. This is because I was lacking in the knowledge of the methodology appropriate for this type of analysis; I was aware of the fact that some brand-new methods were required for the analysis, and I had not been able to

2 formulate them before. Even in my 1990 article, I neither analysed Webster’s biblical citations according to the types of entries, nor referred to their relations with Johnson’s counterparts; I was only able to discuss citations supplied in entries on words for the letter L in Webster’s Dictionary there, although this means that I thought it might be appropriate to investigate the whole stretch of the L’s if I was to grasp the general compilation process in the Dictionary. Actually, the methods required for such a project had hardly been formulated before I dived into the ‘sea of verbal examples’ in the respective first editions of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, except for the assumption that there would be significant differences in the way the two lexicographers supplied verbal examples according to the types of entries and sub-entries, if there was a significant relationship between their verbal examples, their view of the language and the usage of words. Based on this assumption, I began to check Johnson’s verbal examples that he supplied in his treatment of words for the letter L, verbs of high frequency, the inflected forms of the verbs, prepositions, prepositional adverbs, modal auxiliaries, primary verbs and the inflected forms of the verbs; the reason why I selected these types of words is described in Section 2.4. I began this task at the University of Exeter in May 2000, under the supervision of Professor Dr. Reinhard Hartmann. After I finished checking Johnson’s relevant verbal examples, I began the same type of analysis of Webster’s verbal examples. While engaged on such tasks, I also examined the analyses of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries that had been made by various authorities as extensively as possible. It took me approximate half a year to complete this preliminary survey for the project. The performance of the survey was painstaking, but highly rewarding, for three reasons. Firstly, I was gradually able to formulate one of the fundamental methods for the project; by the time I finished the survey, I had become certain that the statistical tabulation of the language facts I had collected would ensure the success of the project. Secondly, it became evident that both Johnson and Webster had usually supplied verbal examples on the basis of their view of the language and the usage of words, respectively. Thirdly, the survey seemed to have revealed that a number of prevailing attitudes typical of some of the analyses of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries are based on misconceptions, clarifying alternative facts instead. This strongly suggested to me the significance of my project in the historical study of English lexicography.

1.2

Purposes of the Research

Citations or invented examples are usually regarded as a critical part of the dictionary. Sidney Landau has assessed the situation correctly: Illustrative quotations can convey a great deal of information about collocation, variety of usage (degree of formality, humorous or sedate context), connotation (effective implications), grammatical context (if a verb, does it take an indirect object?), and, of course designative meaning. Short, invented phrases are frequently essential to tell the reader how the definition is actually used in ordinary contexts. (Landau 1989:166)

3 Few lexicographers would fail to support this statement. However, as far as I can judge, sufficient attention has not been paid to the point of how the use of verbal examples began and developed in the history of English lexicography, especially in America. If the oftenquoted saying “only by knowing the history of an issue can we see the way to the future we want” is applicable to the study of lexicography, it is a fact which should not be overlooked. The primary purpose of this thesis is to clarify Noah Webster’s use of verbal examples in his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) in relation to his view of the language and the historical background in which the Dictionary was compiled. To achieve this purpose, I will compare the verbal examples with those in Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755). I expect that the analysis to be made in this way will contribute to clarifying the use of verbal examples in the early history of American lexicography. A comparative analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries is nothing new in the historical study of English lexicography. This substantially began in 1962 with Joseph Reed’s article, ‘Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson’. Because of the fact that Webster compiled his Dictionary with reference to Johnson’s, as is generally acknowledged, the comparative analysis has always been useful in revealing various aspects of Webster as a lexicographer. However, in the history of more than forty years of the analysis, it seems that Webster’s practice in supplying verbal examples has hardly been dealt with from a linguistic viewpoint. Two reasons are conceivable for this. One is that his use of verbal examples has been obscured by another characteristic feature, the provision of encyclopaedic information. Actually, it has often been believed that Webster as a lexicographer was unique in this respect. However, Webster was originally a grammarian who was deeply interested in the language, and his grammars were widely read throughout America at his time. Besides, he provided entries on words which have a wide range of senses and functions, such as verbs of high frequency, function words, auxiliary verbs and so on in his Dictionary. These facts indicate the probability that the Dictionary is essentially a dictionary of the language, however abundant it may be in encyclopaedic information. The other reason for the fact that Webster's verbal examples have not received sufficient attention is that in his Dictionary Webster supplied citations far less frequently than Johnson. Mainly because of this, there is a prevailing belief that Webster did not recognize the value of citations in the dictionary. Actually, however, there is little evidence which can deny the probability that Webster supplied only a small number of citations as a result of his careful selection of phrases and sentences to be quoted. Furthermore, when browsing through Webster’s Dictionary, we can see that he supplied an abundance of invented examples in it, indicating that he was fully aware of the importance of verbal examples. In this situation, there are few reasons for claiming that Webster underestimated the value of citations. Webster himself may have often criticized an excessive number of citations in the dictionary. However, as far as I can judge, he acknowledged the need for citations after he began compiling his Dictionary in 1807. In addition to the primary purpose I mentioned above, I will also aim to clarify two points as secondary purposes: the relation between Johnson’s verbal examples and his view of the language and the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s use of verbal examples in relation to their respective historical backgrounds. The use of Johnson’s Dictionary for the purpose of seeking the linguistic significance of Webster’s verbal

4 examples is automatically accompanied by the need to clarify that of Johnson’s. I will also attach importance to this point, which does not seem to have been analysed sufficiently to date. With regard to the analysis of the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s use of verbal examples in relation to their historical context, it may safely be said that any lexicographer is subject to historical constraints and that he/she often makes a deliberate effort to compile a dictionary which meets the needs of the time. And the doctrine of correctness in the use of the language changes in accordance with the time. In this sense, the dictionary may be called a by-product of a particular period. Then, if I use the first edition of Johnson’s Dictionary in my analysis, it is expected that the comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s linguistic use of verbal examples will reveal part of the difference between the doctrine of correctness in English usage in mid-eighteenth-century Britain and that in nineteenth-century America, thus clarifying the language facts which are necessary to be taken into account in the historical study of English lexicography. A few essential terms which I use in the course of the text need to be defined here: (1) linguistic and encyclopaedic; (2) grammar and usage; (3) literary; and (4) prescriptive and descriptive.

(1) Linguistic and Encyclopaedic My use of linguistic is largely based on Reinhard Hartmann and Gregory James’s (1998:88) definition of linguistic information: “information categories presented by the compiler and consulted by the user of a dictionary, based on language”, including such information types as etymology, spelling, pronunciation and grammar. That is, I have generally used the word when referring to diachronic, orthographic, phonological, grammatical, semantic and pragmatic information in Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, but I have not always used it in discussing usage labels in Johnson’s Dictionary. This is for the reason that Johnson seems to have occasionally supplied usage labels based on his literary taste, which are thought to be of a different kind from language information in its usual sense. With regard to the term encyclopaedic, again I base myself on the sense of factual knowledge as defined in Hartmann and James (1998:49): “In contrast with linguistic information, encyclopedic material is more concerned with the description of objective realities than the words or phrases that refer to them”. This also tallies with Keith Roe’s (1977:16) interpretation of non-lexical information, the description of “a wide variety of historical or utilitarian facts and figures”, and encyclopaedic information, the explanation of “the object or abstraction for which a word stands”. (2) Grammar and Usage In defining grammar, Hartmann and James (1998:64) have stated that “Sometimes the term ‘grammar’ is used to refer to the overall system of a language or language variety, including phonology and semantics, which the linguist is charged to describe and which may or may not reflect the native speaker’s intuition”. And, concerning usage, the same authorities (1998:149) have stated that it is “A collective term for various judgements on aspects of language”. With reference to these statements, I will generally use the term grammar when referring to the system of the language and usage for specific aspects such as words and phrases.

5 (3) Literary The senses of the term literary vary according to the interpretation of its relevant term literature. Tom McArthur (1992:620) has claimed that literature has two senses; one is “Artistic creation through language and its products” and the other is “The texts of a group or subject”. My use of literary is always related to the first sense of literature indicated here, and not to the second. Based on this principle, I use literary in the senses which McArthur (1992:615) indicated: “Of writing and especially literature”, “Well-versed or engaged in works of literature” and “Having the style of literature, often to the point of affectation or stiltedness”. (4) Prescriptive and Descriptive It will be widely acknowledged among lexicographers that ‘prescriptive lexicography’ means, as Hartmann and James (1998:111) have stated, “An approach to dictionary-making which is based on normative attitudes as to how a language or language variety should be used rather than the facts observed about its usage”, and that the ‘descriptive dictionary’, as the same authorities (1998:37) have stated, implies “An approach to dictionary-making which is based on the observed facts about a language or language variety rather than attitudes on how it should be used”. Part of my concepts of prescriptive and descriptive is covered by these explanations. At the same time, however, I will often use the terms, taking into account the ‘reason’ and the ‘facts of usage’ which Sterling Leonard has discussed in relation to the thought of grammarians in the eighteenth century as follows: In dealing with problems of language, one of two basic and contrary principles is generally adhered to; in the eighteenth century the two are clearly differentiated. The one assumes the power of reason to remold language completely, and appeals to various principles of metaphysics or logic, or even makes pronouncements on mere individual preference posing as authority, in the endeavor to “correct, improve, and fix” usage. The other, while admitting the usefulness of purism in recommending what may be regarded as improvements, recognizes language – even cultivated language – as a vastly complicated and often haphazard growth of habits stubbornly rooted, the product of great variation in social soil and climate, not more readily changed by fiat into clipped and formal garden pattern than is any vast area of swamp and jungle and timber-line vegetation. Adherents of this second principle are primarily interested in studying the facts of usage, determining as much as possible of their history and causes, and attempting to classify them according to valid criteria of their social effects in communication. (Leonard 1962:13)

In line with this passage, I will also regard Johnson and Webster as prescriptive when they are judged to have been based on ‘reason’, and as descriptive when it is thought that they attached importance to the ‘facts of usage’. This means that however strictly they may have indicated the usage of words, the two lexicographers will often be regarded as descriptive when they can be judged to have based themselves on the ‘facts of usage’ of the words; I will do this in cases where I discuss their views of grammar and usage in relation to the concepts of ‘reason’ and the ‘facts of usage’.

6

1.3

The Linguistic Foundation of the Thesis

In the following two sections, 1.4 and 1.5, I will make critical observations on Johnson’s and Webster’s view of language and the English language to date, providing an overview of the perspectives of Johnson’s verbal examples among authorities; as to Webster’s verbal examples, they seem to have hardly been analysed until today. The reason for making such observations is that the primary and secondary purposes of the thesis, which I discussed in Section 1.2, will be achieved only through the procedure of comparative analysis of the linguistic significance of their verbal examples, which I will undertake in the main body of the thesis, Chapters 4 to 8. This being the case, it becomes unavoidable to clarify their basic views of language and the English language in the first place. My intention is to accomplish the task by revealing various problems included in the studies by authorities up to now. This task will naturally lay the foundation for the argument in the main body, clarifying the necessity of a linguistic approach to Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples. It may have to be stated here, in passing, that some of the misunderstandings of Johnson’s and Webster’s views of language among various authorities seem to have derived from their perspectives of the historical background of the two dictionaries. As to Webster’s Dictionary, especially, the general approach to ascribing its compilation to his patriotism is thought to have obscured the linguistic significance of verbal examples in it. This is a serious problem which concerns the purpose of the thesis and should not be left neglected. However, I will discuss it in Section 3.3, as part of the chapter entitled “The Historical Background of Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries”, for contextual reasons.

1.4

Johnson’s View of Language and the English Language

1.4.1 Overview of Problems in the Analyses to Date Johnson’s view of language had not been formulated when he began to compile his Dictionary. It was gradually formulated as he went on with the task. This means that when he finalised his Dictionary, he did not necessarily think of language as he had done before. This fact has occasionally caused misunderstandings among authorities, often affecting their assessments of the history of English lexicography. Specifically, because they have a less than complete understanding of the similarity and difference between the contents of the “Preface” to Johnson’s Dictionary and that of the Plan of a Dictionary (1747), which Johnson wrote before compiling the Dictionary, authorities have occasionally failed to appreciate his changing view of language. For the purpose of eliminating such errors from the thesis, I need to clarify how Johnson’s view of language developed, since without the appropriate understanding of Johnson’s view of language, the linguistic significance of his verbal examples will not be analysed successfully. Besides, I need to discuss problems involving the study of Johnson’s verbal examples in his Dictionary to date. Specifically, the verbal examples have mainly been studied from a literary viewpoint until today. Actually, however, Johnson’s primary concern was consistently with English grammar throughout the task of compiling the Dictionary. In spite of this fact, it has been rare for the verbal examples to be studied from a linguistic

7 viewpoint. It will be necessary to reveal such problems if I am to clarify how the thesis will contribute to the study of Johnson’s verbal examples.

1.4.2 Formulation of Johnson’s View of Language In 1747, eight years before his Dictionary, Johnson (1747:4) simply stated in the Plan that “The chief intent of it [the Dictionary] is to preserve the purity and ascertain the meaning of our English idiom”. That is, when he began compiling his Dictionary, he was confident that it would guarantee a beneficial effect on the purification of the language. When he finalised the Dictionary, however, he had to state the following in its “Preface”: [...] we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, or clean the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [9th (par. 84) in the “Preface”])

Clearly, Johnson’s conviction of the possibility of stopping changes in the language was gradually weakened while he was engaged in the compilation of the Dictionary. Observing this situation, many authorities have considered that Johnson came to have the view that it was a vain attempt to stop the change in the language when he finalised his Dictionary. Some have considered that Johnson recognized the limitation of what lexicographers can do. Morton Benson (1986:4) has said that “Johnson [...] realized clearly that all living languages change and that, therefore, dictionaries should never be considered to be ‘final’ descriptions of a language”. Likewise, Tetsuro Hayashi (1978:100) has said, “Johnson was fully conscious of the lexicographer’s limitations as a linguistic controller, who was destined to treat a language that cannot be unchangeable”. This point of view has also been held by such authorities as James Sledd and Gwin Kolb (1955), Ronald Wells (1973) and Henri Béjoint (1994). Slightly differently from them, Howard Weinbrot has regarded Johnson’s change as a reflection of his maturity as a lexicographer. He stated that: On the Plan’s side, of the ledger, then, we see self-flattery, irrationality, inexperience [...] and pride. On the Preface’s side, we see proper modesty, experience, freedom, thought, and growth. (Weinbrot 1972:92)

Weinbrot (1972:93) has also claimed that Johnson “overtly and covertly rejects the Plan, many of his own earlier notions regarding language” when he published his Dictionary. In spite of apparent differences in their opinions, the authorities cited above often seem to have passed over a critically important passage in the “Preface”. Johnson never came to think it futile to attempt to resist changes in the language. Torn between his zeal for purifying and fixing the language and the recognition of its impossibility, Johnson stated the following: If the changes that we fear be thus irresistible, what remains but to acquiesce with silence, as in the other insurmountable distresses of humanity? It remains that we retard what we cannot repel, that

8 we palliate what we cannot cure. Life may be lengthened by care, though death cannot be ultimately defeated: tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration; we have long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggles for our language. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [10th (par. 91) in the “Preface”])

Without recognizing Johnson’s view of language expressed in this passage, the linguistic significance of his Dictionary would be difficult to assess. Through the task of compiling the Dictionary, Johnson also formulated a unique conception of language. That is, he made the following statement about language in the “Preface”, which is not found in the Plan: Language is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas: I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent, like the things which they denote. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [2nd (par. 17) in the “Preface”])

Here, he discriminated between ideas and words, the constituents of language, wishing that both would retain their purity as long as possible. As to the ‘words’ referred to in this passage, Rackstraw Downes (1962:30) has explained that “the mind perceives reality, retains mental pictures of it, and communicates these pictures by allotting them signs, which are called words”; judged from the context of the passage, this explanation seems to be reasonable. About his notion of language, Johnson also stated the following: As language was at its beginning merely oral, all words of necessary or common use were spoken before they were written; and while they were unfixed by any visible signs, must have been spoken with great diversity, as we now observe those who cannot read to catch sounds imperfectly, and utter them negligently. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [1st (par. 7) in the “Preface”])

In this statement, referring to words, Johnson discriminated between spoken language and written language. And the statement also indicates that he attached importance to written language; he seems to have had the recognition that its ideal style would slow the progression of change in language as a whole. (This point concerns his prescriptivism, affecting his use of verbal examples, which will be examined in the main body of the thesis.) It is now clear that Johnson’s view of language is inextricably related to his recognition of change in language; in the respective passages above, which concern Johnson’s view of language, he referred to changes in language. What, then, did he think the causes of changes were? In other words, against what did Johnson consistently try to fight while compiling his Dictionary with the provision of an abundance of verbal examples? In order to seek an answer to this question, I will compare Johnson’s statements in the “Preface” to his Dictionary with the statements of a lexicographer who published the Gazophylacium Anglicanum (1689) anonymously. Tetsuro Hayashi (1978:97-98) has claimed that “most of the outstanding lexicographers before Johnson seem to have been fully conscious of what they regard as the excellence of the English language, and they were proud of its superiority to any one of the modern languages in Europe”. This opinion is basically correct, but the author of the Gazophylacium was an exception. Certainly, he may not have been one of the ‘outstanding lexicographers’; the Gazophylacium has been generally regarded as a crude imitation of Stephen Skinner’s Etymologicon Linguae Anglicanae (1671), an etymological

9 dictionary written in Latin. Martyn Wakelin (1987:161), for instance, has claimed that “The author of the Gazophylacium [...] is predominantly interested in etymologies; which are frequently plundered from Skinner”. However, the author of the Gazophylacium was aware of and lamented linguistic change more than 60 years before Johnson’s Dictionary, referring to some probable causes of change. The “Preface” to the Gazophylacium states: [English] is so strangely corrupted through Time, that when I look’d an hundred, or an hundred and fifty Years only behind me, I could scarce imagine it ever to have been the Language of my Ancestors, or even of the Country I was born in, ‘tis so chang’d through Commerce, Correspondence, Travellers, and such like Accidents. (Anon. 1689: n. pag. [2nd-3rd (par. 5) in the “Preface”])

This view, the corruption of the language for the reason of ‘commerce and the like’, corresponds to Johnson’s statement in the “Preface”: Commerce, however necessary, however lucrative, as it depraves the manners, corrupts the language; they that have frequent intercourse with strangers, to whom they endeavour to accommodate themselves, must in time learn a mingled dialect [...]. This will not always be confined to the exchange, the warehouse, or the port, but will be communicated by degrees to other ranks of the people, and be at last incorporated with the current speech. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [9th (par. 86) in the “Preface”])

Then, the author of the Gazophylacium cited another probable cause of change in the language. He said (1689: n. pag. [3rd (par. 5) in the “Preface”]), “Much more may you imagine it to be alter’d [...] by Conquests, Invasions, Transmigrations of Government, &c”. In this respect, Johnson’s opinion is different from that of the author of the Gazophylacium. Johnson (1755: n. pag. [9th (par. 86) in the “Preface”]) stated that “Total and sudden transformations of a language seldom happen; conquests and migrations are now very rare”. It seems that here lies the difference between Johnson and the lexicographer who compiled an etymological dictionary, whatever historic events the two lexicographers may have assumed, citing the terms conquests and migrations, respectively; as to “Transmigrations of Governments”, the author of the Gazophylacium may have thought of the Glorious Revolution, an event which happened at his time, although it seems that a serious change in the language was not caused by the event, as far as I can judge. Instead of citing conquests and other reasons, Johnson referred to other probable causes of linguistic change, such as the development of civilization (1755: n. pag. [8th (par. 81) in the “Preface”]), that of science (1755: n. pag. [9th (par. 82) in the “Preface”]) and a mixture of two languages (1755: n. pag. [10h (par. 89) in the “Preface”]). However, what worried Johnson most was the negative impact of translation. It can be said that this was natural for Johnson who attached importance to written language. He stated the following: The great pest of speech is frequency of translation. No book was ever turned from one language into another, without imparting something of its native idiom; this is the most mischievous and comprehensive innovation; single words may enter by thousands, and the fabrick of the tongue continue the same, but new phraseology changes much at once; it alters not the single stones of the building, but the order of the columns. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [10th (par. 90) in the “Preface”])

10 In this passage, Johnson tried to depict how non-native varieties of words corrupt the language. Furthermore, Johnson emphatically stated that: If an academy should be established for the cultivation of our stile, [...] let them, instead of compiling grammars and dictionaries, endeavour, with all their influence, to stop the licence of translatours [...]. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [10th (par. 90) in the “Preface”])

The ‘academy’ Johnson referred to here would be a nationally authorized institute for the purification of the language; I will discuss it in detail in Section 3.1. And this passage illustrates the fact that Johnson was seriously concerned about the adverse effect of translation. It will be natural to consider that this recognition of Johnson’s influenced his selection of the sources of his citations; one typical example for this is that he rarely supplied citations from the English Bible for indicating the usage of the language, which will be discussed in Sections 5.1.3, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.2.2, and 8.1.1.

1.4.3 Problems in Investigating Johnson’s Verbal Examples to Date As Johnson was a person of versatile gifts, his verbal examples, especially his citations which characterize the Dictionary, have been analysed from various points of view. A. D. Atkinson (1950:338-341) used the citations to study scientific knowledge among the English-speaking people in the eighteenth century. Certainly, Johnson’s citations provide a considerable quantity of encyclopaedic information. For instance, in the entry on animal, Johnson supplied 54 lines of citations from a book of natural history, which detailed biological classification. William Wimsatt (1959:83), who investigated Johnson’s citations from various angles, claimed that “Johnson’s Dictionary is an eighteenth-century tabloid speculum – a Speculum Historiale, Naturale, and Doctrinale”. Edward McAdam and George Milne were in line with Wimsatt when they claimed the following: For physics he [Johnson] used Newton, but botany and zoology had not settled down to a logical nomenclature, and he had to use second-rate authorities. [...] He used what books were available for agriculture and building. Electricity excited him: he refers to the Transactions of the Royal Society, and is aware of what Franklin is experimenting on in the colonies. (McAdam and Milne 1963:ix)

Besides, Johnson was a pious Christian and a moralist. This fact can be gathered from his Rambler (1750-52) and the “Prayers and Meditations” in the Johnsonian Miscellanies (1897) edited by George Hill. Maurice Quinlan often used Johnson’s citations in the Dictionary when analysing Johnson’s religious thought in the book Samuel Johnson: A Layman’s Religion (1964). Robert DeMaria is probably the authority who has investigated Johnson’s citations most extensively. In his Johnson’s ‘Dictionary’ and the Language of Learning (1986), DeMaria discussed Johnson as a moralist, educator and man of encyclopaedic knowledge exclusively based on citations in the Dictionary. He claimed that:

11 Johnson’s Dictionary is generically related not only to dictionaries but also to a host of encyclopedic histories, poems, commentaries, educational works, commonplace books, and, of course, encyclopedias themselves. (DeMaria 1986:4)

DeMaria (1986:ix) even regarded Johnson’s Dictionary as a “disguised encyclopedia”. Among the authorities on Webster’s Dictionary, it has usually been asserted that Webster included abundant religious and encyclopaedic information and that Johnson did not practice this, which will be referred to in Sections 1.5.1, 2.6, 4.3.3, 4.5.1 and 4.5.2. DeMaria’s investigation, as well as Atkinson’s, Wimsatt’s, McAdam and Milne’s and Quinlan’s, are more than enough to refute such assertions. However, have DeMaria and other authorities I cited above captured the essential aspect of Johnson’s citations? As seen in the previous sub-section, Johnson’s view of language changed while he was engaged in the compilation process. However, he was always conscious of regulating the language by means of grammar. Actually, this had consistently been a chief concern for Johnson throughout the entire compilation process of his Dictionary. In his Plan, Johnson (1747:30) stated that “I [...] shall therefore endeavour to support what appears to me most consonant to grammar and reason”. And in the “Preface” to the Dictionary, he stated the following: The words [entry-words in the Dictionary], thus selected and disposed, are grammatically considered: they are referred to the different parts of speech; traced, when they are irregularly inflected, through their various terminations; and illustrated by observations, not indeed of great or striking importance, separately considered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, and hitherto neglected or forgotten by English grammarians. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 42) in the “Preface”])

More precisely, Johnson frequently referred to various aspects of grammar in the “Preface”: derivatives (1755: n. pag. [2nd-3rd (par. 19 and 20)]), irregular conjugation of nouns and verbs (1755: n. pag. [3rd (par. 21)]), orthography (1755: n. pag. [3rd-4th (par. 28)]), compound words (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 33)]), suffixes (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 34)]), gerunds (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 35)]), participles (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 36)]), phrasal verbs (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 40)]), expletives (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 44)]), verbs of high frequency (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45)]), and particles (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 46)]). And the distinctive feature of Johnson’s Dictionary lies in an abundance of verbal examples. These facts, Johnson’s intense consciousness of grammar and an abundance of verbal examples in his Dictionary strongly suggest the probability that he essentially supplied citations to illustrate grammatical rules of the language. DeMaria has been partly aware of this. Though referring little to the relation between grammar and usage, and Johnson’s verbal examples, he stated, in passing, the following in his discussion of the relation between Johnson’s religious thought and some of the verbal examples: The central purpose of the Dictionary is philological, and the majority of Johnson’s bibliographical decisions were, broadly speaking, linguistic; acknowledged masters of English are heavily quoted [...]. (DeMaria 1986:16)

12 The following is another example: Although as a book Johnson’s Dictionary is partly an encyclopedia and partly educational text, it is clearly and primarily a dictionary in the ordinary sense. (DeMaria 1986:20)

This statement was also supported by his discussion. Some authorities have tried to seek Johnson’s literary thought in the examples. Johnson was originally a man of letters. Furthermore, he was renowned as the “Great Cham of literature” in the eighteenth century. For this reason, quite a few authorities have claimed that the essential quality of Johnson’s verbal examples lies in their literary aspect. Ian Watt (1962:18) has counted Johnson’s Dictionary as one of his greatest literary achievements. He formulated such an opinion through his investigation of Johnson’s verbal examples. And James Murray (1900:42) has claimed that in Johnson’s hands the English dictionary became a department of literature; this perspective is also based on the investigation of the verbal examples. Since the verbal examples were supplied by the “Great Cham of literature”, it is quite natural for the authorities to assume their literary colour. As to how they are literary, Wimsatt claimed that: Johnson’s Dictionary [...] is, for one thing, embellished by numerous aphorisms, anecdotes, thumbnail dramas, biographical glimpses, drawn from Bacon for instance, from Shakespeare, from Ben Jonson, from Knolles, from Camden, from L’Estrange, from Swift. (Wimsatt 1959:78-79)

Wimsatt has also made the following remarks: Johnson’s Dictionary is generously planted with miniature expressions of literary theory and critical judgement – from Sidney’s Defense, from Ben Jonson’s Timber (a work otherwise largely neglected during the eighteenth century), from Dryden, from Swift, from Addison – the shapers of the English critical tradition before the time of Johnson himself. (Wimsatt 1959:80)

Wimsatt’s remarks here are likely to be true. However, we should not be intoxicated by the literary colour of the verbal examples. Johnson did not always supply literarily significant citations in his Dictionary. As I mentioned earlier in this sub-section, Watt and Murray recognised Johnson’s Dictionary as essentially a literary work. It can be said that this interpretation has resulted from the conception that Johnson always supplied ‘good’ citations from the works of notable authors. In this regard, Martyn Wakelin (1987:174) has stressed that “With Johnson we come to the idea of [...] the use of selected ‘good’ authors for illustrative quotations”. Likewise, Tetsuro Hayashi has claimed: [...] we are impressed with Johnson’s deliberate attitude towards the selection of the authorities: [...] words and examples are to be chosen from the best authors [...] and sentences indicating the immediate use and the characteristics of elegance. It is certain that all these considerations were instrumental in forming the essence of the most authoritative and prescriptive dictionary of the English language. (Hayashi 1978:104)

Plainly, such claims go against the facts. Hayashi’s recognition, especially, is based on Johnson’s description in the Plan; Hayashi considered that Johnson always tried to practice

13 as he preached in the Plan, the document which Johnson had written before the formulation of his view of language. Allen Read (1986b:38) has collected the voices of the readers of Johnson’s Dictionary for a period of approximately fifty years after its publication. They tend to express views such as “Johnson has not used sufficient discrimination in selecting his authorities” and “Johnson often quotes as authorities Arbuthnot and Thomson, who were never considered, even by their own countrymen, as standards of purity.” James Sledd and Gwin Kolb (1955:135) have also claimed that “Johnson included too many quotations, often from writers of no authority”. The conception of ‘good’ authors may differ widely in individuals. However, Johnson himself admitted that he occasionally included citations from non-canonical authors whose works could not be regarded as ‘good’. He (1755: n. pag. [6th (par. 59) in the “Preface”]) stated that he had included citations from authors “never mentioned as masters of elegance or models of stile” in his Dictionary. One reason for this was, as he (1755: n. pag. [6th (par. 59) in the “Preface”]) explained, that “words must be sought where they are used”; this statement shows part of Johnson’s descriptivism. Another reason was the following, which reveals his prescriptivism: The words which our authours have introduced by their knowledge of foreign languages, or ignorance of their own, by vanity or wantonness, by compliance with fashion, or lust of innovation, I have registered as they occurred, though commonly only to censure them, and warn others against the folly of naturalizing useless foreigners to the injury of the natives. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 31) in the “Preface”])

A literary approach to Johnson’s verbal examples seems to have been prevailing for a long time. To be specific, Rackstraw Downes (1962:29-41) has tried to clarify Johnson’s ideal style of prose and poetry based on his selection of the sources of citations in the Dictionary, referring to the development of English poetic diction at the same time. Arthur Sherbo (1956:126), through a comparison of Johnson’s notes provided in his Plays of William Shakespeare (1765) with his citations from the author in the Dictionary, has claimed that the Dictionary is “the most complete glossary and concordance to Shakespeare” in the 1760’s. In opposition to such a climate of literary investigation of Johnson’s verbal examples, a few authorities have advocated the necessity of a linguistic approach to them. Harold Allen, aiming to refute Sherbo, has claimed that: In his comments about certain words in the selected Shakespearean quotations in the Dictionary, Samuel Johnson provided significant insight into his reaction to Shakespeare himself, not as a playwright or poet but as a user of the English language. (Allen 1977:1)

What Allen did was to analyse labels which Johnson put to his citations from William Shakespeare, such as “Analogical”, “Bad”, “Barbarous”, “Burlesque” and “Inelegant”. In this regard, McAdam and Milne have pointed out the following fact: Johnson feels that he is not only required to record and to exemplify but to judge. Hundreds of times he objects to the use of a word, whether by Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Pope, or Addison, all of whom are the objects of his almost unlimited admiration. (McAdam and Milne 1963:x)

14 Howard Weinbrot (1972), Ronald Wells (1973) and Charlotte Brewer (1999) are in line with McAdam and Milne. As far as I know, one of the authorities who made the most significant examination of critical labels which Johnson put to his citations is Donald Siebert; drawing attention to the high incidence of citations with the labels “cant”, “ludicrous”, “low”, “bad” and “low bad”, Siebert (1986:489) claimed that “if we venture into the world of eighteenth-century colloquialism and slang, we shall find Johnson’s Dictionary a helpful mecum”. However, can Allen’s analysis, as well as Siebert’s, be called linguistic? Hayashi (1978:102) has pointed out that Johnson’s critical labels are “primarily based on the subjective evaluation of the qualities of words”, hinting at the probability that they derive from Johnson’s literary view. In this respect, I agree with Hayashi. More than anything else, the contents of labels Allen and Siebert have cited have little relevance to grammar, Johnson’s primary concern. Daisuke Nagashima has taken a different stand. He (1983:208-210) focused on cases where Johnson provided grammatical notes with citations. One such case is the following: J: To DISCOURAGE. v.a. 3. It is irregularly used by Temple, with to before the following word. You may keep your beauty and your health, unless you destroy them yourself, or discourage them to stay with you, by using them ill. Temple’s Miscell.

This example indicates how Johnson supplied citations from a grammatical viewpoint. However, Nagashima referred to no more than eleven such cases, which is far from sufficient to draw a meaningful conclusion from. Besides, he investigated verbal examples in the entries on the words behindhand, discourage, gust, moralize, peculiar, pernicious, quaint, refund, site, and square, whose relationships with one another are quite vague. To make matters worse, Nagashima did not explain at all of on what principle he selected such entries. In this case, his investigation can hardly be regarded as systematic. In this way, grammatical analyses of Johnson’s verbal examples have been made very rarely to date. Some authorities have pointed out that Johnson’s Dictionary is essentially a dictionary of the language and not of literature. In spite of this fact, they have hardly tried to prove their opinions by analysing the verbal examples which characterize the Dictionary. David Fleeman, for instance, has stated that: [...] despite the presence of some marked idiosyncrasies it should not be forgotten that Johnson was compiling a dictionary of the English language [...]. His purpose was to explain English words to English readers and to instruct them in their choice and use. (Fleeman 1984:44)

However, Fleeman does not seem to have made an investigation which accords with this statement. Similarly, Hayashi (1978:95) has said that “As one of the prerequisites of a grammatical dictionary, Johnson evidently held the idea that a dictionary should give importance to commonness and generality of words and phrasal expressions”. Saying thus, Hayashi did not document a single citation in Johnson’s Dictionary. Noel Osselton is probably one of very few authorities who have successfully examined one linguistic aspect of Johnson’s verbal examples. In his ‘Phrasal verbs: Dr Johnson’s use of bilingual sources’ (1995:93-103), Osselton systematically analysed Johnson’s selection and use of citations in the treatment of phrasal verbs. Still, however, Osselton’s analysis touches only on part of

15 Johnson’s descriptivism. Actually, Johnson’s linguistic use of verbal examples has hardly been analysed to date.

1.4.4 Generalization of the Analysis Johnson’s view of language had not matured before he began compiling the Dictionary. In this sense, if we regard the Dictionary as reflecting all his statements in the Plan, we will not be able to make a correct assessment of this. Torn between the zeal for fixing the language and the recognition of it being impossible in compiling the Dictionary, Johnson gradually developed a unique attitude toward the language, which is revealed in his statement I cited in Section 1.4.2: “Life may be lengthened by care, though death cannot be ultimately defeated: tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration: we have long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggles for our language”. This attitude, resistance against linguistic change coupled with the recognition of it being ultimately fruitless, cannot be observable in his Plan in which Johnson optimistically stated “The chief intent of it [the Dictionary] is to preserve the purity and ascertain the meaning of our English idiom” with the confidence of being able to stabilize the language once and for all. This change from “immaturity” to “maturity” will be critically important if we want to grasp the linguistic significance of Johnson’s verbal examples, the vital part of his Dictionary, correctly. As to his verbal examples, the fact will also have to be emphasized that Johnson did not necessarily supply them from a literary viewpoint. Rather, it can safely be said that the literary aspect of the examples was of secondary importance for Johnson, when we recognise his enthusiasm for grammar which is expressed in the “Preface” to the Dictionary. However, very few authorities seem to have analysed the verbal examples with this intention. I will perform this task in every chapter in the main body of this thesis, which is necessary to compare Johnson’s and Webster’s practice of supplying verbal examples in the light of their views of the language.

1.5

Webster’s View of Language and the English Language

1.5.1 His Strong Language Awareness Concerning Webster’s Dictionary, it is common knowledge that its encyclopaedic aspect has almost always been emphasized. However, at the end of the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Webster stated the following: If the language can be improved in regularity, so as to be more easily acquired by our own citizens, and by foreigners, and thus be rendered a more useful instrument for the propagation of science, arts, civilization and Christianity; if it can be rescued from the mischievous influence of sciolists and that dabbling spirit of innovation which is perpetually disturbing its settled usages and filling it with anomalies; if, in short, our vernacular language can be redeemed from corruptions, and our philology and literature from degradation; it would be a source of great satisfaction to me to be one

16 among the instruments of promoting these valuable objects. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [3rd (par. 17) in the “Preface”])

This passage clearly shows that Webster thought that the provision of linguistic information was more important than that of encyclopaedic information. And Webster is thought to have expected that the citizens of his country would prosper based on the standardization of the language. That is, there is a strong probability that the provision of encyclopaedic information was only of secondary importance in the Dictionary. Like Johnson’s, Webster’s view of language had apparently gone through several changes. Without recognizing this, the linguistic significance of his verbal examples could not be appreciated adequately. In this section, I will refer to a reason for the changes and discuss what the changes were like. Then, I will discuss the fundamentals of his view of language which is revealed in his Dictionary. In addition, I will also investigate Webster’s study of etymology here; this will be necessary to prove that Webster’s view of language and the English language is highly scientific, though within his historical limitation, contrary to the pronouncements of quite a few authorities. As to the historical context of the study of Webster’s verbal examples, I will not discuss it in this section. The reason for this is that only a small number of authorities have addressed the verbal examples directly in spite of the fact that they actually comprise a focal part of his Dictionary. I will discuss the various approaches and attitudes of the authorities in relevant places in the main body of this thesis, especially in Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.

1.5.2 The Formulation of Webster’s View of Language Webster had apparently been torn between descriptivism and prescriptivism for a long time. He once stated the following in his Dissertations on the English Language (1789): Comparing the practice of speaking among the yeomanry of this country, with the stile of Shakespeare and Addison, I am constrained to declare that the people of America, in particular the English descendants, speak the most pure English now known in the world. (Webster 1789:288)

At the same time, however, he had made the following statement in 1783, as quoted by Allen Read: The want of some standard in schools has occasioned a great variety of dialects in Great-Britain and of course, in America. Every county in England, every state in America and almost every town in each state, has some peculiarities in pronunciation which are equally erroneous and disagreeable to its neighbors. (Read 1986a:198)

These two statements have in common that they concern spoken language in America, but they clearly conflict with each other. The former reveals Webster’s attitude of accepting the language as it is, and the latter his zeal for standardizing it. Ronald Wells (1973:54), by recognising Webster’s descriptivism and his awareness and love of the mutability of the language, has claimed that “Webster’s theories anticipate in part the modern doctrine of usage held by linguists today”. By contrast, Read (1986a:198) has laid stress on Webster’s

17 prescriptivism, saying that “Webster’s inquiring mind was wrestling with the problem of language standard”. They are both, respectively, regarded as correct in referring to Webster’s view of the language. However, Webster’s prescriptivism has often been ignored in the past. Read’s opinion here suggests the incorrectness of Sidney Landau’s (1984:59) that “Unlike Johnson, Webster had no desire to ‘fix’ the language but welcomed change as an invigorating force” and Herbert Morton’s (1994:44) that “In contrast to Johnson, who thought that language change, though inevitable, was undesirable and ought to be retarded, he [Webster] welcomed the growth of English to meet new needs in new continents”. In this regard, Charlton Laird appropriately stated the following, referring to Webster’s prescriptivism: Webster had previously been much concerned with fixing the language, with purifying it, standardizing it, and purging it of dialects and improprieties. As late as April, 1786, he had written “there is no longer any doubt that I shall be able to effect a uniformity of language and education throughout this continent.” (Laird 1972:272)

Thus, Landau’s perspective, as well as Morton’s, may be misleading. Their claims can be regarded as having resulted from a disregard for Webster’s ambivalent view of the language prior to the publication of his Dictionary. It may be worth mentioning, in passing, the reason why Webster wanted to effect such uniformity of language and education around 1786, as revealed in the passage from Laird above. The document which Laird referred to is not available to me. However, Webster elucidated the point in his Dissertations on the English Language (1789), which was published three years after 1786. In a word, he seems to have wanted to perform this for the purpose of stabilizing and developing the early republic. The following is an extract from the relevant part of the book: Nothing but the establishment of schools and some uniformity in the use of books, can annihilate differences in speaking and preserve the purity of the American tongue. [...] Small causes, such as a nick-name, or a vulgar tone in speaking, have actually created a dissocial spirit between the inhabitants of the different states, which is often discoverable in private business and public deliberations. Our political harmony is therefore concerned in a uniformity of language. (Webster 1789:19-20)

Webster’s internal conflict between his descriptivism and prescriptivism seems to have caused him to go through several changes in his view of language. Before discussing the point, however, I will overview what grammars Webster published in chronological order, which will be helpful to make the discussion comprehensible. Differently from Johnson, who was essentially a man of letters, Webster was originally a grammarian. Webster’s first grammar, the Grammatical Institute of the English Language, was published in 1783; in the following year, he published its second part which was continuously published in various states, Webster himself revising it several times. Ikegami (1971:71-72) has detailed which grammatical treatises Webster issued between 1784 and 1831. A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, Part II 1784: 1st edition

18 1785: 2nd edition 1785: 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th editions The Rudiments of English Grammar 1790 Dissertations on the English Language 1798 A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language 1807: 1st edition 1822: 2nd edition An Improved Grammar of the English Language 1831

As Webster published his grammars one after another in this way, his linguistic view gradually changed, and this change naturally affected his view of grammar. However, this is an issue which has hardly been addressed to date. Makoto Ikeda (1999:67-88) is one of the very few authorities who have tried to elucidate Webster’s changing views of language and English grammar. Referring to documents which are hardly available today, Ikeda seems to have succeeded in achieving his purpose. Thus, according to Ikeda, Webster followed the tradition of Latin grammar in his English grammar published in 1784. This opinion sounds convincing when we read the following passage in Ikeda’s book: A Grammatical Institute, Part II [1st ed., 1784] follows Robert Lowth’s Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762), as he acknowledged on some occasions; thus “in the organization and general arrangement of the text we find on every hand the influence of the Latin grammars of the past”. Webster’s divisions of the subject, “Grammar consists of four parts; viz. Orthography, Prosody, Analogy [Etymology] and Syntax”, follows a tradition used by the Latin grammarians. His definition of grammar, “Grammar is the art of speaking and writing our thoughts with propriety”, also follows a tradition of Latin grammars (Ikeda 1999:67)

Ikeda also claimed that Webster had lost interest in Latin grammar by the year 1787. He compared the second and third editions of Webster’s Grammatical Institute, Part II, quoting the following passage from its second edition: How many are the parts of speech? Nine, viz. the Article, Noun, Pronoun, Adjective, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, Interjection. (Ikeda 1999:9)

From the third edition, Ikeda quoted the following: Into how many classes may words be distributed? Six: Nouns, Articles, Pronouns, Adjectives, Verbs [...] Particles. (Ikeda 1999:8)

Ikeda has pointed out another change in Webster’s view of grammar. This time, he referred to the difference between the first and third editions of the Grammatical Institute, Part II:

19 Webster became more and more innovative. Although his Grammatical Institute, Part II (1784) was criticised for novelties, it still assumed a prescriptive stance on the whole. This new grammar, in contrast, became completely descriptive. (Ikeda 1999:88)

This opinion is based on the following assessment of the third edition: [Webster] admits a plural form without a plural termination such as “two year,” “five mile,” “ten foot”; he approves of the objective form following “to be” (“Me is also used in the nominative, in popular practice – it is me. This is condemned as bad English; but in reality is an original idiom of the language [...]”); he thinks the second person pronoun “you” can be used as singular (“The compilers of grammars condemn the use of was with you – but in vain. The practice is universal, except among men who learn the language by books. The best authors have given it their sanction, and the usage is too well established to be altered.”) (Ikeda 1999:87)

Ikeda has not referred to Webster’s Dictionary, but its entry on you suggests that Webster’s view of grammar went through a further change, though slightly, after the third edition of the Grammatical Institute, Part II. In this entry, Webster stated: You has been considered as in the plural only, and is so treated in the Saxon grammar. But from the Belgic dialect, it appears to be in the singular as well as the plural, and our universal popular usage, in applying it to a single person with a verb in the singular number, is correct. Yourself is in the singular number.

Webster’s view of you revealed here seems to be basically the same as that in the third edition of his Grammatical Institute, Part II which Ikeda has shown. However, Webster no longer dared to cite the example you was. It may be said that his view of grammar had been moderated further after 1785. On the basis of the observations above, it is no longer surprising why authorities occasionally disagree about Webster’s view of grammar. For instance, Thomas Pyles and Ikegami have compared Webster’s view of grammar with Lindley Murray’s, expressing opinions which differ markedly from each other: Pyles: He [Murray] and Noah Webster, also a child of the Age of Reason, have probably had more to do with the direction and regulation of the English language than any other individual figures. (Pyles 1954:69) Ikegami: [...] while Murray, who was nearly his contemporary and whose work became immensely popular in the early nineteenth century, was really more of an eighteenth century man, Webster can justly be said to have been quite the reverse. (Ikegami 1971: 66-67)

It can be said that Pyles regarded Webster as a prescriptive grammarian before 1785 while Ikegami saw him as basically a descriptive grammarian after that. It may safely be said that both of these authorities failed to notice the change in Webster’s view.

20 1.5.3 Fundamentals of Webster’s View of Language as Revealed in His Dictionary Webster’s view of language was formulated after it had undergone several changes, as discussed above; without appreciating these changes, his view of language as revealed in his verbal examples will hardly be understood. Thus, in the “Introduction”, “Grammar” and “Preface” to his Dictionary, Webster expressed his view of language in the year 1828. He began the “Introduction” with the following words: Language or Speech is the utterance of articulate sounds or voices, rendered significant by usage, for the expression and communication of thoughts. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st (par. 1) in the “Introduction”])

This view of language is similar to Johnson’s, except for an emphasis on usage which I will refer to later in this sub-section. As discussed in Section 1.4.2, Johnson thought that language was oral at the outset. However, in addition to the words above, Webster also stated: Language is that which is uttered by the tongue, and if men do not write the language as it is spoken by the great body of respectable people, they do not write the real language. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”])

Here, it is clear that Webster placed more importance on spoken language than written language. In other words, he asserted that written language should be based on spoken language. He (1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”]) confirmed this assertion by saying that “the universal colloquial practice” was “the real and only genuine language”. This is in stark contrast with Johnson’s view. As already discussed in Section 1.4.2, Johnson stressed the importance of written language, as well as the risk of excessive emphasis on spoken language, saying that all words of necessary or common use were liable to degenerate if they were unfixed by any visible signs. It was because Webster was conscious of language as a medium of communication that he attached importance to spoken form. Referring to the ‘custom’ of the language, or the ‘facts of usage’ which I referred to in Section 1.2, Webster harshly criticised language education in schools as follows: We toil in school to learn a language which we dare not introduce into conversation, but which the force of custom compels us to abandon. In this respect, the present study of grammar is worse than useless. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”])

In conjunction with this, any set of views will have to be criticised which attempts to convey the impression that Webster was interested in archaic words and archaic use of words. Thus, Joseph Reed (1962:101) once claimed that many of the words Webster added to Johnson’s Dictionary “were already obsolete or used only in archaic or poetic diction by the beginning of the nineteenth century”. However, there is a problem with this interpretation. It is based on Reed’s comparison of Webster’s Dictionary with the 1799 edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, the reason for which I will detail in Section 2.2. In this respect, Webster stated the following, referring to Henry Todd’s edition of Johnson’s Dictionary whose first edition was published in 1818:

21 The catalogue of obsolete words in Johnson has been considerably augmented by Mason and Todd. I have, though somewhat reluctantly, inserted nearly the whole catalogue, which, I presume, amounts to seven or eight, and perhaps, to ten thousand words. Most of these may be useful to the antiquary; but to the great mass of readers, they are useless. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th-46th in the “Introduction”])

In this way, Webster valued the usage and custom of language for maximizing its potential as a medium of communication. However, Thomas Pyles (1954:67) is not correct in claiming that Webster’s “heart was really not in syntax” and that “Sentence structure and idiom actually concerned him but little”. Webster expressed his notion of grammar as follows: The Grammar of a language is a collection of principles and rules, taken from the established usages for the nation using that language; in other words, an exhibition of the genuine structure of the language. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st in the “Grammar”])

This statement clarifies that Webster was fully aware of and cared about the importance of sentence structure. In this respect, Ronald Wells is correct to stress the following: Webster recognized the inevitability of linguistic change, and the power of usage [...]. But for him it did not follow that language could not be modified by the reason to conform to principles of reason. (Wells 1973:64)

The following statement by Webster will clarify the point further: It has been my aim in this work, now offered to my fellow citizens, to ascertain the true principles of the language, in its orthography and structure; to purify it from some palpable errors, and reduce the number of its anomalies, thus giving it more regularity and consistency in its forms, both of words and sentences; and in this manner, to furnish a standard of our vernacular tongue [...]. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [3rd (par. 16) in the “Preface”])

In the body of his Dictionary, there are several entries which illustrate how Webster’s view of language changed and developed. I will cite a few of them below. In 1807, when he began compiling his Dictionary, Webster remarked, as quoted by James Boulton: Shakespeare was a man of little learning; and altho, when he wrote the popular language of his day, his use of words was tolerably correct, yet whenever he attempted a style beyond that, he often fell into the grossest improprieties. Thus he speaks of the insisture of the heavens and the planets – cords too intrinsecate – to patient a person – a pelting river farm – to sanctuarise murder – compunctious visitings of nature – a combinate husband – of convertite – conspectuity and corresponsive, &c. barbarisms which every correct ear instantly condemns – and for which he certainly could plead no authority, even in the pedantic age in which he lived. (Boulton 1971:134135)

This passage refers to Johnson’s inclusion of ‘barbarisms’ in his Dictionary. However, Webster treated some of the words mentioned here in his own Dictionary. He marked the word pelting as follows:

22 W: PELTING, a. In Shakespeare, mean; paltry. [improper]

At the same time, however, Webster did not censure the use of compunctious and corresponsive at all: W: COMPUNCTIOUS, a. Pricking the conscience; giving pain for offenses committed. Let no compunctious visitings of nature Shake my fell purpose. Shak. ---------W: CORRESPONSIVE, a. Answerable; adapted. Shak.

Yoshihiko Ikegami has commented on Webster’s ambiguous view of lesser and worser before 1828 as follows: Webster considers lesser ‘hardly allowable’, though admitting that it is widely used (H4 [the fourth edition of the Grammatical Institute, Part II] (1787) p. 86). In Ph [the Philosophical and Practical Grammar], however, he cites lesser as the comparative along with less (1807, p. 63). But elsewhere he notes that ‘double comparatives and superlatives, being improper and useless, are not to be used’ and that ‘worser [...] is obsolete [...] lesser is still used’ (p. 165 note). (Ikegami 1971:57)

This ambiguity is regarded as the result of Webster’s changing view of the usage of the word. His final decision on their use is seen in the entries on lesser and worser in his Dictionary. The entries read that lesser is “a corruption; but too well established to be discarded” and that worser is “a vulgar word, and not used in good writing or speaking”; it can be said that his view of lesser here also indicates that he had become considerably more descriptive by 1828.

1.5.4 Webster’s Study of Etymology Thus far, I have discussed how Webster’s view of language and the language came to be formulated and shown how it is revealed in his Dictionary, both of which are prerequisites for analysing his verbal examples from a linguistic perspective. Here, an important question may be raised: did Webster carry out his study of language and the language scientifically? Quite a few authorities are sceptical on this point; some of these scholars will be referred to in this sub-section. In most cases, the reason lies in Webster’s view of etymology. That is, it has often been recognised as essentially based on his imagination. However, is such interpretation justified? In order for this section to be more meaningful, and for making the analyses in the main body of the thesis fully productive, I will need to examine and clarify the true significance of Webster’s view of etymology here. It has generally been acknowledged that Webster enthusiastically studied etymology to make his Dictionary complete. According to Read (1967:166), Webster even stayed in France and England for a year between 1824 and 1825, mainly for the study of etymology;

23 this was in the midst of his compiling the Dictionary. In consequence, this was to considerably delay the publication of the Dictionary, which Webster was fully aware of. Looking back on his efforts, he was to state the following later: I endeavored, by a diligent comparison of words, having the same or cognate radical letters, in about twenty languages, to obtain a more correct knowledge of the primary sense of original words, of the affinities between the English and many other languages, and thus to enable myself to trace words to their source. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st (par. 3) in the “Preface”]) I determined on a voyage to Europe, with the view of obtaining some books and some assistance which I wanted; of learning the real state of the pronunciation of our language in England, as well as the general state of philology in that country; and of attempting to bring about some agreement or coincidence of opinions, in regard to unsettled points in pronunciation and grammatical construction. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st (par. 6) in the “Preface”])

In spite of the pains Webster took, his view of etymology has very frequently met with severe criticism. One major reason for this is his acceptance of John Tooke’s linguistic theory and his ‘rejection’ of William Jones’s model of Indo-European linguistics; the reason why I put the word rejection in quotation marks here is that Webster was not blessed with the opportunity to know the significance of Jones’s achievement and thus was unable to reject it as such (see below). Tooke was renowned as a radical politician whose varied acquaintances included James Boswell, Jeremy Bentham, William Godwin and Thomas Paine. He wrote a book üŒ0. Œ20! 02., or the Diversions of Purley (1786-1805), an approach to language and grammar which made his reputation at the time but is harshly criticized now by modern authorities for its wild speculation. No explanation is necessary about Jones who is often described as the pioneer of comparative philology. Webster was deeply impressed by Tooke’s linguistic theory. As Charlton Laird (1972:273) has said, “From Tooke, Webster acquired some notion of the importance of change in language, and the idea that the study of English etymology should be based upon a study of the older forms of the language”. Instead, Webster was rather dismissive of Jones. In the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, he stated: I have to combat the opinion of that elegant scholar, Sir William Jones, who protests against the licentiousness of etymologists, not only in transposing letters, but in totally disregarding the vowels, and seems to admit the common origin of words only when written with the same letters, and used in a sense precisely the same. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [9th in the “Introduction”])

This statement will sound impudent to modern linguists and grammarians who have been brought up in the tradition of comparative philology. Albert Baugh (2002:367) has said that Webster’s “self-assurance had its faults as well as its virtues”, and that “It led him to ignore discoveries from Europe that were establishing the principles of comparative linguistics, and to spend years writing etymologies that were inadequate even for his time.” Sidney Landau (1984:61) also claimed that “The major discoveries of the German philologists, especially Jacob Grimm, were just becoming widely known, but Webster’s natural arrogance, contentiousness, and contempt for any theory that controverted his own blinded him to the significance of even those discoveries with which he was familiar”.

24 When we look into the history of linguistics, however, such criticism of Webster may turn out to be unfair. Laird has stated the following, which is basically in line with Baugh’s and Landau’s comments but also includes another notable fact: [...] just at this time [the beginning of the nineteenth century], of course, the evidence was coming to light which has led to our understanding of language relationships. Webster even encountered some of this evidence, probably during his stay at Oxford, but he rejected Sir William Jones’ findings out of hand. (Laird 1972:282)

As Laird implied in this statement, Webster actually stayed at Oxford University, and it was probably there that he encountered Jones’s findings. However, Laird seems to have overlooked an aspect of the history of linguistics. It is thought that Webster ‘rejected’ Jones’s findings for the very reason that he encountered it in England, probably at Oxford University. This is apparently a strange fact. However, it should be noted that Jones’s findings were more reputable in America than in England at the time Webster was in England. That is, it was in 1786 that Jones mentioned the affinity of the group of languages which was to be called ‘Indo-European languages’ later. And in that same year the first part of Tooke’s major work on language, üŒ0. Œ20! 02. RU 7KH Diversion of Purley, was published. This sub-section is not the place for the discussion of the difference between Jones and Tooke, but it is necessary to see how each of them influenced authorities in England at the time. Concerning this point, Hans Aarsleff has pointed out an important fact: The reputation of Tooke’s Diversions is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the intellectual and scholarly life of England during the first third of the nineteenth century. For thirty years it kept England immune to the new philology until the results and methods finally had to be imported from the Continent in the 1830’s, and even then they met strong opposition. (Aarsleff 1967:73)

In the study of Webster’s etymology to date, little attention has been paid to how authorities in England at his time received it. Allen Read is one of few who have cared about this issue. And he has revealed the following fact: His [Webster’s] dictionary attracted the attention of an English scholar, E. H. Barker, of Thetford, Norfolk, who forthwith wished to republish it in an English edition. In describing it to the English public in a London journal, Barker dwelt upon Webster’s etymological advances [...]. (Read 1967:172)

The person referred to here is the English classical scholar and lexicographer Edmund Barker, who published the first British edition of Webster’s Dictionary in 1832. Furthermore, Read has also claimed: Webster can be called America’s first comparative philologist. He shared the view that had developed by the eighteenth century that there was an “affinity” among the languages that we now call the Indo-European family. (Read 1967:163-164)

Why, then, did Webster ‘reject’ Jones? This concerns my reference at the beginning of this sub-section that Webster did not have the advantage of knowing the significance of Jones’s achievement. Three reasons can be given for this:

25 (1) When Webster was spending time in England, Jones was considerably less well known than Tooke. (2) Although Webster had been aware of Jones’s theory of Indo-European linguistic affinities, little more than the following (quoted by David Micklethwait) was available in print: The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure: more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either. Yet bearing to both of them a strong affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed that no philologer could examine them all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family, if this were the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia. (Micklethwait 2000:164)

This statement of Jones’s was originally published in the third volume of the journal ‘Asiatic Researches’, which was issued by Jones himself, in 1786. Webster referred to it; he (1828: n. pag. [9th in the “Introduction”]) clearly indicated that his criticism of Jones was based on “Asiatic Researches, vol. 3, p. 489”. However, it would have been difficult for most linguists to find epoch-making significance in this short passage without commentaries by linguists such as Jacob Grimm who began to be widely known in America shortly before or during Webster’s absence; according to Read (1967:170), Grimm’s “Deutsche Grammatik of 1819 broke new ground, but especially the recasting in the second edition of 1822 brought out the formulations that have come to be known as Grimm’s Law”. It is little wonder that Webster criticized Jones, saying that Jones “seems to admit the common origin of words only when written with the same letters” etc. as already mentioned in this sub-section. (3) The third reason why Webster ‘rejected’ Jones’s model of Indo-European linguistics can be sought in Read’s account shown below, with which I agree. In a word, Webster worked under extreme pressure at a critical time for acknowledging the significance of historical-comparative linguistics: Noah Webster [...] finished the manuscript of his great dictionary in January of 1825, and then was so engrossed in seeing it through the press that he was oblivious to the new scholarship. (Read 1967:170) The new Scandinavian findings in linguistics [...] did not impinge upon Webster until the proofreading stage of his great dictionary in 1827 [...]. (Read 1967:167)

The three points mentioned above can be counted as the reasons for Webster to have missed the opportunity of incorporating Jones’s finding. Actually, Webster did not reject IndoEuropean linguistics intentionally.

26 There is an example which clearly shows that Webster’s study of etymology was not a waste of time. It concerns the spelling of despatch. A considerable number of English dictionaries today regard despatch as a variant of dispatch. In the COBUILD dictionary, for instance, the entry on despatch merely reads “See dispatch”. The situation is the same in the OALD. The origin of despatch has usually been ascribed to Johnson’s misspelling in his Dictionary. James Murray (1900:41), with the recognition that dispatch stemmed from an Italian word dispaccio, remarked in 1900 that despatch got into Johnson’s Dictionary by “some inexplicable error”, and that “since about 1820, the filtering down of the influence of Johnson’s Dictionary has caused this erroneous spelling despatch to become generally known and to be looked upon as authoritative”. The entry on despatch in the second edition of the OED still runs as follows: The uniform English spelling from the first introduction of the word to the early part of the 19th c. was with dis-; but in Johnson’s Dictionary the word was somehow entered under des- (although Johnson himself always wrote dispatch, which is also the spelling of all the authors cited by him).

Noel Osselton has raised an objection to this view in 1994. He regarded the spelling despatch as relevant to the etymology of the word as understood at Johnson’s time. Referring to the etymology of the word in some dictionaries between the seventeenth century and the eighteenth, Osselton pointed out the following fact: Bailey gives the source simply as despêcher and Martin as depecher, with depeché for the noun. The Gazophylacium says “from the Fr[anco]-G[allica] Despescher, or the Ital. Dispacciare, the same.” The full entry in Skinner (to whom Johnson acknowledged an indebtedness for etymologies) is as follows: “Dispatch à Fr[anco]-G[allica] Despecher, Despescher, It. Dispacciare, Spacciare, Expedire, q.d. Dispedire, Despeditare.” (Osselton 1994:309)

Based on this, he has suggested the possibility that Johnson may have considered that the word was not from Italian but French. This suggestion of Osselton’s becomes justified when we read the entry on despatch in Johnson’s Dictionary. Johnson clearly indicated the following: J: To DESPATCH. v.a. [depescher, French.]

However, more than one hundred and fifty years before Osselton’s objection, Webster was well aware of the historical change in the view of the etymology of dispatch. In the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, Webster stated that: [...] dispatch, which had, from time immemorial, been written with i, was changed into despatch, on the wonderful discovery, that the word is derived from the French depêcher. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [30th in the “Introduction”])

In the body of his Dictionary, Webster provided more etymological information on the word. His explanation in the entry on dispatch reads as follows: W: DISPATCH, v.t. [Fr. depécher; Sp. despachar [...] It. dispacciare; Arm. dibech, disbachat.]

27 Here, Webster also showed the equivalent words of dispatch in French, Spanish, Italian and Armoric. It may be worth pointing out at the end of this discussion that Webster’s theory of the origin of language has often been questioned. Richard Rollins (1980:128-130) has introduced relevant censure by such authorities as Mitford Mathews, Joseph Friend, Charlton Laird, George Krapp and James Murray. The major reason for this censure is that Webster was theological in discussing the origin of language. The part of the ‘Origin of Language’ in the “Introduction” to Webster’s Dictionary begins like this: [...] we may infer that language was bestowed on Adam, in the same manner as all his other faculties and knowledge, by supernatural power; or in other words, was of divine origin. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st in the “Introduction”])

Laird has concisely summarized Webster’s opinion beginning with these words: The Word said that Jehovah talked with Adam; therefore, the power of speech and at least the working rudiments of a language were the immediate gift of God. This language was uniquely preserved by Noah and his sons, after the flood, and Webster named all European and many Asiatic languages Shemitic, on the theory that they were developed by the descendants of Shem, and he believed that his language is now preserved in a form most archaic and hence most pure in what he called Chaldee. (Laird 1972:281)

Certainly, as far as the origin of language is concerned, Webster’s view was scriptural and far from scientific. However, this does not mean that his description of etymology is of no value. As analysed above in this sub-section, much of his etymological information is worthy of appreciation. In this sense, Rollins’s (1980:130) claim that “Webster’s etymology was simply a literal extrapolation of scriptural truth into another field” seems to be a hasty conclusion.

1.5.5 Generalization of the Analysis Johnson went through hardship, aiming to fix the language while at the same time recognising its impossibility. Webster was also long torn between prescriptivism and descriptivism. He was originally prescriptive and gradually became more descriptive, discarding his interest in Latin grammar, which is closely related to ‘reason’, and attaching ever more importance to the “universal colloquial practice”, which he thought “the real and only genuine language”; I discussed in Section 1.2 the concepts of ‘reason’ and the ‘facts of usage’, and their relevance to prescriptivism and descriptivism. He had not entirely abandoned prescriptivism until his Dictionary was published in 1828, but it would be wrong to regard him at that time as genuinely descriptive. This is a point which will be seen, for instance, in Section 5.1.4, but Webster was sometimes more prescriptive than Johnson. And in the main body of the thesis Chapters 4 to 8, such unique aspects of his view of grammar will be revealed through the analysis of his verbal examples to which little attention has been paid to date. With regard to Webster’s study of etymology, I discussed it as proof of his relatively scholarly approach to language, which is in opposition to quite a few authorities who have

28 regarded it as proving his unscientific and scriptural view of language. If his study of etymology was scientifically done even with the historical limitations, as it actually was, it can be said that it helped him to formulate the principle on the basis of which he could judge the ‘correct’ usage of words independent of Johnson’s view of grammar. Concerning concrete examples, I will refer to them, for instance, in Sections 5.2.2, 7.4, 7.6, 8.1.2 and 8.2.3.

2:

Methodology

2.1

Introduction

In this section, I will itemize seven procedures which were adopted in this thesis: selecting an appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionary to be compared with Webster’s; adopting a sampling method which is concerned with the analysis of general tendencies of Johnson’s and Webster’s practices in supplying verbal examples; adopting a statistical method in the analyses of selected entries which comprises the core of my methods; selecting books on grammar to be based on in the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples; distinguishing citations and invented examples in their dictionaries which has sometimes troubled authorities; finding a solution to the problem of authorship of some works which is related to the tabulation of the results of my analyses; and selecting an appropriate version of the English Bible for the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s biblical citations. These seven procedures concern the essence of the thesis. Apart from them, I also adopted a few other procedures. Specifically, I set up a method for comparing Johnson's Dictionary and two continental dictionaries, and that for recording sources of citations within the range of entries on words for the letter L; they are, respectively, explained in Sections 3.1.2 and 4.1.1.

2.2

Selecting an Appropriate Edition of Johnson’s Dictionary

In any type of comparative study of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, the first task to be carried out is to determine an appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionary to be collated with Webster’s which was published in 1828. As it commanded wide popularity, Johnson’s Dictionary had gone through various editions by 1828. In addition to this, Webster did not himself clarify which edition of Johnson’s Dictionary he referred to. Therefore, authorities have been divided over the issue of which edition of Johnson’s Dictionary should be compared with Webster’s. In this situation, in his ‘Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson’ (1962), a pioneering article in the comparative study of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, Joseph Reed used the 1799 edition of Johnson’s Dictionary. The reason for this is, as Reed (1962:95) has remarked, that a copy of this edition which was owned by New York Public Library as of 1962 contains Webster’s manuscript notes. However, there is a problem about Reed’s selection. Webster’s manuscript notes in the edition were jotted down for the preparation of his other dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language published in 1806. Reed (1962:95) has also admitted this fact. It cannot be determined whether Webster continued to refer to the 1799 edition after 1806. Besides, in his Dictionary published in 1828, Webster (1828: n. pag. [45th-46th in the “Introduction”]) mentioned Johnson’s Dictionary revised by Henry Todd in 1818. In contrast to Reed, Joseph Friend (1967:38-46) compared Webster’s Dictionary with the 1806 edition of Johnson’s published in the year when Webster began compiling his Dictionary. In this respect, Friend’s selection

30 apparently accords with reason. It is very probable that Webster referred to the newest edition of Johnson’s Dictionary of 1806 throughout the task of compiling his Dictionary. Still, however, Friend’s selection may also pose a problem. According to David Micklethwait’s discovery, Webster referred to Alexander Chalmers’s abridged edition of Johnson’s Dictionary which was published in 1820, the year when Webster was in the midst of compiling his Dictionary. Micklethwait (2000:183-184) proved his discovery through his analysis of citations, entry words and definitions in both dictionaries, suggesting the possibility that by the time Webster reached the letter L, “he may have been using Chalmers as his primary source”. In such a problematic situation, it is hardly possible to determine the one and only edition of Johnson’s Dictionary that Webster may have referred to. Furthermore, whichever editions of Johnson’s Dictionary Webster may have used, it is generally acknowledged that Johnson was not involved in any of revised editions of his Dictionary except for an abridged edition in 1756 and the fourth edition in 1773. And it is also generally recognised that there is little possibility that Webster used the first edition or fourth of Johnson’s when he compiled his Dictionary; as to the abridged edition in 1756, it was a small dictionary and it is hardly imaginable that Webster made it a primary source. However, the problem of selecting an appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionary becomes complicated when the purpose of comparison between Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries lies in the clarification of how Webster borrowed from and modified Johnson’s Dictionary published at Webster’s time. I have not addressed this point in the thesis. Rather than trying to clarify the difference between Webster’s Dictionary and one of the editions of Johnson’s which were revised approximately 70 years after its first edition, I have tried to see the difference between the most elaborate dictionary in Britain in the middle of the eighteenth century and that in America in the first half of the nineteenth century in terms of the technique of supplying verbal examples. As discussed in Section 1.2, my fundamental recognition is that the dictionary is a product that serves the needs of the time. When I based myself on this recognition, the solution of the problem of selecting a particular edition of Johnson’s Dictionary came a step closer. Theodore Stenberg was also an authority who took this view. For his analysis of how the treatment of phrases and sentences from Alexander Pope in the English dictionary changed over time, Stenberg (1944:197-210) collated the first and fourth editions of Johnson’s Dictionary, the first edition of Webster’s Dictionary and the second edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary (1984) without referring to any editions of Johnson’s Dictionary after 1773. Following this precedent in part, I have compared Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 with the original first edition of Johnson’s. In this selection of mine, there lay an idea that the two dictionaries were compiled in their respective historical contexts. This means that whatever similarities there may be between Webster’s Dictionary and other editions of Johnson’s Dictionary, they are regarded as the results of Webster’s selection based on his criteria in accordance with his time. This selection of the edition of Johnson’s Dictionary has proved to be beneficial primarily in two respects. Firstly, it has allowed me to compare Johnson’s and Webster’s original view of the language which are revealed in their dictionaries. Secondly, I was able to analyse Johnson’s verbal examples in relation to the historical background of his Dictionary, thus comparing the results of the analysis with those in the case of Webster’s. These would have been not possible if I had used any of the editions of Johnson’s

31 Dictionary which was published at Webster’s time and can hardly be said to reflect Johnson’s original view of the language.

2.3

Adopting a Sampling Method

With the intention of determining general tendencies of Johnson’s and Webster’s practices in supplying verbal examples, I have adopted a sampling method. In the study of English dictionaries, various types of sampling methods have been adopted to date. For instance, in analysing the similarities and differences between Johnson’s Dictionary and the second edition of Nathan Bailey’s Dictionarium Britannicum (1736), a dictionary Johnson referred to when compiling his Dictionary, Daisuke Nagashima (1983:147-158) compared their respective entries under the letter C. Gabriele Stein (1985) studied thirty English dictionaries before Robert Cawdrey’s A Table Alphabeticall (1604) by investigating stretches from the letters A, B and H in them according to her necessity. With regard to the comparative study of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, three representative authorities, namely, Joseph Reed (1962), Joseph Friend (1967) and David Micklethwait (2000), have agreed on a selection from the letter L of the two dictionaries. According to Reed (1962:95), “This was a sample of convenient size and had the added virtue of its position in the book: Webster had by this time settled down to a regular modus operandi ”. In the same way, Micklethwait (2000:180) has claimed that “To be sure of finding Webster loping through the lexicon at a typically even space, we must look at him at work on the letter L”. Though Friend has not said anything about the reason for his selection of the L’s, he is assumed to have thought like the other two authorities. Theodore Stenberg’s method is different from those of the three authorities. In order to compare Johnson’s and Webster’s use of citations from Pope, he investigated first 50 pages from the A’s, G’s, M’s and S’s and the first 29 pages from the W’s in their dictionaries. He stated the following: I arrived at these particular letters by beginning with A and taking every sixth letter from there on, except for W. There are not enough pages of Y’s (or X’s or Z’s) to furnish the additional twentynine pages needed to make the total approximately one-tenth of the Dictionary. I therefore chose the W’s. (Stenberg 1944:197)

This was, Stenberg (1944:197) said, to make his sampling “fairly representative of the whole dictionary”. In the light of these examples, I have adopted the method of Reed, Friend and Micklethwait’s. There are two reasons for this selection. Firstly, I agree with Reed and Micklethwait that Webster is thought to have matured as a lexicographer by the time he arrived at the L’s; this is conceivable of Johnson, as well. Secondly, I thought this selection would serve as a basis for a comparative analysis of the three authorities. As discussed in the previous sub-section, Reed compared Webster’s Dictionary with the 1799 edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, Friend with its 1806 edition and Micklethwait with its 1820 edition. None of the three compared Webster’s Dictionary with the first edition of Johnson’s Dictionary. By comparing the L’s in the respective first editions of the two

32 dictionaries, I expected that some differences between Webster’s Dictionary and Johnson’s which had been unnoticed so far might be revealed. As a result of having adopted the method, it may safely be said that I have succeeded in revealing the general tendencies of Johnson’s and Webster’s practices in supplying citations, respectively. Besides, the use of the method has revealed that in many respects the authorities of Webster’s Dictionary have long held misconceptions about Johnson’s verbal examples. This is mainly because they have generally compared Webster’s Dictionary with the editions of Johnson’s Dictionary which had been revised by the lexicographers well more than forty years after Johnson. And this means that the authorities may have had misconceptions about the differences between Johnson’s verbal examples and Webster’s until today.

2.4

Adopting a Statistical Method in the Analysis of Selected Entries

It was necessary in this thesis to analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s practices in certain types of entries, as well as their usual practices in the whole of the dictionaries, in supplying verbal examples. In this regard, I have chosen to adopt a special type of statistical method. Up to the present, various statistical analyses have been performed in the study of lexicography. Quite recently, Charlotte Brewer (1999:48-49) has used line charts to show how editors of the OED supplied citations; for instance, she proved that they quoted especially frequently from sources which had been published in a decade, e.g. between 1291 and 1300 and between 1391 and 1400, in a figure entitled ‘OED Quotations 11511470’. In his analysis of historic dictionaries in Britain, America and Japan, Yoshiro Kojima (1999) often counted the number of their entry-words; this is beneficial to grasp an aspect of historical changes in lexicographical technique. With regard to Johnson’s Dictionary, when he compared it with the second edition of Bailey’s Dictionarium Britannicum (1736), one of the sources of Johnson’s Dictionary as I mentioned in the previous sub-section, Daisuke Nagashima (1983:148) has demonstrated how many entries Johnson added to and eliminated from Bailey’s Dictionary. Such a method as Nagashima’s has also been adopted by Joseph Reed (1962:95-105) in his comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries. Reed (1962:95-105) has further made use of the method to analyse the lexicographers’ practice in supplying citations; he has tried to show how many citations Webster added to and eliminated from Johnson’s Dictionary. In this way, statistical methods have often been adopted by quite a few authorities; two other examples related to Johnson’s citations are discussed in Section 4.1.1. However, as far as Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples are concerned, no authority seems to have thought of classifying entries according to the types of their entry-words before adopting the methods. In other words, statistical methods adopted by Reed and others so far have been useful to reveal how Johnson and Webster generally tended to supply verbal examples in the whole of their dictionaries. I do not deny the importance of such methods. As discussed in the previous sub-section, I myself tried to show Johnson’s and Webster’s usual practices in supplying verbal examples with the adoption of my sampling method. However, such methods alone do not clarify how Johnson and Webster supplied verbal examples in relation to their view of grammar. Therefore, I further showed from what sources and how

33 frequently from each of them Johnson and Webster quoted in supplying citations in respective entries on verbs of high frequency, their inflected forms, prepositions, prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries; I also treated entries on primary verbs and their inflected forms, but a statistical method was not used for this task because of the small number of citations and others, of which I will discuss further in Section 8.2.1. The reason I selected these types of entries is that my primary concern has been the clarification of the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s practice in supplying citations for function words, for words which require sophisticated knowledge of grammar in their treatment, and for infinitives of verbs of high frequency whose characteristic lies in wide range of senses rather than grammatical function. As to entries on preterites and participles of verbs of high frequency, most of which are irregularly inflected, I thought their analysis would clarify to what extent the lexicographers were conscious of morphology in compiling their dictionaries. And I expected that the analysis of entries on inflected forms of primary verbs would reveal the relations between their citations, if they had supplied them, and their consciousness of the grammatical categories of person, number and mood. Besides, I have taken account of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice of supplying invented examples, as well as that of supplying citations, within the range of entries cited here. Then, I also provided tables, to the extent possible, which reflect the results of my analyses. Here, it naturally becomes necessary to solve the problem of the selection of entries on verbs of high frequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. As to entries on verbs of high frequency, Johnson (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45) in the “Preface”]) enumerated the examples of “verbs too frequent in the English language”: “bear, break, come, cast, full, get, give, do, put, set, go, run, make, take, turn, throw”. The entries on these words are generally thought to be appropriate for the purpose of my investigation, though I regard full in the examples as a misspelling of fall and do as a primary verb. Therefore, I selected entries on bear (v.t.), bear (v.i.), break (v.t.), break (v.i.), come (v.i.), cast (v.t.), cast (v.i.), fall (v.t.), fall (v.i.), get (v.t.), get (v.i.), give (v.t.), give (v.i.), go (v.i.), put (v.t.), put (v.i.), set (v.t.), set (v.i.), run (v.t.), run (v.i.), make (v.t.), make (v.i.), take (v.t.), take (v.i.), turn (v.t.), turn (v.i.), throw (v.t.) and throw (v.i.) in Johnson’s Dictionary as well as in Webster’s. As for the selection of entries on prepositions, neither Johnson nor Webster showed a set of examples. However, it will be sufficient if I investigate entries on 19 prepositions in both dictionaries: about, after, at, before, below, by, down, from, for, in, into, of, off, on, over, through, to, upon and with. Entries on prepositional adverbs to be investigated can be determined based on the selection of those on prepositions. Out of the 19 prepositions of my selection, Johnson thought that at least 12 of them also function as adverbs, since he provided entries on the 12 words as adverbs in the first edition of his Dictionary. These are about, after, before, below, by, down, in, off, on, over, through and to. I have investigated entries on these prepositional adverbs in the two dictionaries. In investigating the entries determined thus, I have not dealt with Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples and comments, which they occasionally provided, in sub-entries provided for idioms. This also applies to entries on other types of words to be dealt with except for those in the L’s. This is because I intended to focus attention on the lexicographers’ verbal examples in relation to the case where their relevant entry-words retain their original senses. Both lexicographers provided quite a few sub-entries for phrasal verbs, for instance, supplying a large number of verbal examples there. I did not include

34 sub-entries on them in my analysis. Concerning this type of idiom, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (1975:263) have correctly stated that for some phrasal verbs “the meaning of the combination cannot be built up from the meanings of the individual verb and adverb, for example: catch on (=‘understand’), give in (=‘surrender’), turn up (=‘appear, arrive’) etc.”. To a greater or lesser extent, such a situation is also true to other types of idioms. Part of Tom McArthur’s (1992:497) definition of idiom seems to be convincing: “An expression unique to a language, especially one whose sense is not predictable from the meanings and arrangement of its elements, such as kick the bucket a slang term meaning ‘to die’, which has nothing obviously to do with kicking or buckets”. If I had also dealt with sub-entries on phrases in which original senses of words are lost, there would have been little meaning to separate entries on verbs of high frequency, those on prepositions, those on modal auxiliaries and so on from each other; my intention has been to analyse how Johnson and Webster supplied verbal examples for words which retain their original senses. For this reason, I have not treated sub-entries on idioms in their dictionaries. This naturally means that the number of verbal examples in each table, which I referred to above in this subsection, does not include that in sub-entries provided for idioms. The analysis of how Johnson and Webster supplied verbal examples for the respective types of words cited in this sub-section comprises the core of the thesis. And the chapters in the main body of the thesis are arranged in accordance with this analysis. The results of the analysis have proved that Johnson and Webster respectively supplied their verbal examples based on their view of the usage of the types of words. Besides, the verbal examples clarified quite a few differences between Johnson and Webster in terms of their view of the language, many of which are thought to have been unnoticed to date. In this sense, it can safely be said from a broad perspective that I have successfully achieved the purposes of the thesis owing largely to the analysis.

2.5

Selecting Books on Grammar to Be Based on in the Analysis of Their Verbal Examples

Some remarks have to be made here about two types of books to be based on in this thesis: the books which provide information on prevailing perspectives on grammar at the times of Johnson and Webster, and the books of contemporary grammar which can be regarded as authoritative. As for the former, I have mainly referred to Sterling Leonard’s reissued edition of The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800 (1962). As its title indicates, this book mainly deals with the view of grammarians’ in the eighteenth century, but it also abounds with information on Webster’s view of grammar; Leonard has discussed Webster in 60 sections out of 188 which comprise the work. Though relatively old, this book has long been regarded as authoritative among experts on historical grammar. Bertil Sundby (1985:158), for instance, has said about the book, “The linguistic norms of the Age of Reason have been well described by Leonard (1929), and the topical glossary he includes is useful as far as it goes”. Leonard’s book is still regarded as useful to grasp the generalities of grammarians’ thoughts at Johnson’s and Webster’s times, though for specialized study of historical grammar, Sundby’s Dictionary of English Normative Grammar, 1700-1800 (1991), published in rivalry with Leonard with the collaboration of

35 Anne Bjørge and Kari Haugland, seems to be more useful. In addition to Leonard’s book, I have occasionally referred to Hans Aarsleff’s Study of Language in England, 1780-1860 (1967); this book also deals with grammarians’ perspectives at Webster’s time. Concerning books on contemporary grammars, I have basically used Randolph Quirk et al.’s Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985). Few authorities will be against the perspective that this book is authoritative in the study of contemporary grammar. It may apparently be strange that I have regarded the selection of books as one of the methods adopted in the thesis. However, it was important for me to solve the problem of from what grammatical perspectives I should interpret some of the findings in the thesis. It can even be said that how I solve the problem partially determines the characteristic of the thesis. I hope my solution with the use of the books I cited in this sub-section will be beneficial to cultivate the field of the study of English lexicography.

2.6

Distinguishing Citations and Invented Examples

Verbal examples in the dictionary can generally be divided into two types: citations and invented examples. Ronald Wells (1973:115) called them ‘quoted citations’ and ‘invented illustrations’, and Anthony Cowie (1989:58) ‘quotations’ and ‘made-up examples’. Nowadays, the two types of verbal examples can be clearly distinguished from each other. In Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, however, the boundary between the two is difficult to draw. One reason for this is that Johnson frequently modified phrases and sentences in original sources, and Webster borrowed quite a few of Johnson’s modified ‘citations’ in his Dictionary. There are frequently occasions when Webster modified such ‘citations’ further. As to Johnson, it is widely known that he modified original phrases and sentences. For instance, in the entry on sophistically in his Dictionary, Johnson supplied the following, claiming that this was from Jonathan Swift: Bolingbroke argues most sophistically. Swift.

William Wimsatt (1959:75) has pointed out that the original sentence of this is as follows: I must observe that my Lord Bolingbroke, from the effects of his kindness to me, argues most sophistically. The fall from a million to a hundred thousand pounds is not so great, as from eight hundred pounds a year to one.

Robert DeMaria (1986:17) has cited another interesting example. He found the following in the entry on learn (v.a.) in Johnson’s Dictionary: You taught me language, and my profit on’t Is, I know not how to curse: the red plague rid you, For learning me your language. Shakesp. Tempest.

This is a modified sentence whose original is the following, the renowned sentence from Shakespeare’s Tempest:

36 You taught me language, and my profit on’t Is, I know how to curse: the red plague rid you, For learning me your language.

Concerning the difference between the two, DeMaria (1986:17) has claimed that “Johnson acknowledges the moral, educational nature of” his Dictionary, and that “The Dictionary is a moral teacher”. And in their article the ‘selection and use of the illustrative quotations in Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary ’ (1972:61-72), Gwin Kolb and Ruth Kolb have shown numerous examples which illustrate Johnson’s modification of phrases and sentences taken from original sources. Such modification is what Johnson himself admitted in the “Preface” to his Dictionary. He stated: The examples are too often injudiciously truncated, and perhaps sometimes, I hope very rarely, alleged in a mistaken sense; for in making this collection I trusted more to memory, than, in a state of disquiet and embarrassment, memory can contain, and purposed to supply at the review what was left incomplete in the first transcription. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 70) in the “Preface”])

It may be worth pointing out, in passing, that Tetsuro Hayashi (1978:104) claimed that one of the characteristics of Johnson’s Dictionary lies in “accurate quotations”, and that they were the “essentials of the most authoritative and prescriptive dictionary of the English language”; this claim is found erroneous when the analyses by Wimsatt, DeMaria and the Kolbs, which are mentioned above, are referred to. In spite of this situation, however, I have regarded Johnson’s verbal examples whose sources are indicated as citations and other examples as invented examples. And I have also treated Webster’s verbal examples in the same way. It was, in a sense, natural for Johnson and Webster to modify original phrases and sentences. As discussed in Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3 and 1.5.2, this is because both of them held a prescriptive view of the language to a greater or lesser degree throughout the task of compiling their dictionaries. The verbatim copying of original phrases and sentences is a matter which basically concerns the lexicographers of descriptive dictionaries. Besides, prior to the first volume of the OED (1884), the importance of descriptiveness had not been fully recognized among lexicographers. Richard Trench (1857:9-10), an advocate of the compilation of the OED, has censured such shortcomings in Johnson’s Dictionary as an insufficient number of entry-words in his renowned On Some Deficiencies in Our English Dictionaries (1857), but even he did not refer to its inaccurate citations. Concerning Webster’s Dictionary, there were other problems to be solved. One of them is that Webster very frequently indicated the names of authors and titles of books in entries in his Dictionary. This is expounded in Section 4.3.3, but he often practiced this, evidently without supplying citations. Examples are: W: INTERMARRIAGE, n. Marriage between two families, where each takes one and gives another. Johnson. Addison. W: MELTER, n. One that melts any thing. Derham.

37 In these examples, two phrases beginning with the words “Marriage” and “One” can in no way be regarded as citations, though the names of authors are attached to them. When Webster supplied citations, he did this in small-sized letters. Examples are shown as below, which also indicate that his citations generally follow definitions: W: IMP, n. 1. A son; offspring; progeny. The tender imp was weaned. Fairfax. A lad of life, an imp of fame. Shak. W: LARGELY, adv. 3. Liberally; bountifully. - How he lives and eats; How largely gives. Dryden.

I have regarded phrases and sentences written in small-sized letters, to which sources are put, as Webster’s citations, though I have shown them in normal-sized letters in every relevant sub-section for the sake of convenience; I exceptionally write them in small-sized letters here to make the point explicit. Therefore, such a phrase as the following with ‘Harris’ has been regarded as a definition, and the sentence with ‘J. Appleton’ as a citation: W: MECHANICS, n. A mathematical science which shows the effects of powers or moving forces, so far as they are applied to engines, and demonstrates the laws of motion. Harris. It is a well known truth in mechanics, that the actual and theoretical powers of a machine will never coincide. J. Appleton.

This method differs from Joseph Reed’s. He generally regarded phrases and sentences to which names of authors or titles of books are put as citations. This is evident from his statement which has been made in his analysis of citations for entries in the stretch of the L’s in Webster’s Dictionary. Based on the recognition that Webster added 448 citations to Johnson’s Dictionary in the L’s, Reed (1962:104) claimed that “more than half of the illustrations he added to Johnson (at least in the L’s) came from the Bible and an encyclopaedia”. I have expounded on Webster’s citations in the L’s in Section 4.3, but Webster did not add as many as 448 citations to Johnson’s Dictionary within the range, and he rarely supplied citations from an encyclopaedia there. Reed is naturally thought to have also regarded the following type of passage as the citation, to which the abbreviation ‘Encyc.’ indicating ‘encyclopaedia’ is put in normal-sized letters: W: LEVELING, n. The art or practice of finding a horizontal line, or of ascertaining the different elevations of objects on the surface of the earth; in other words, the difference in the distance of objects from the center of the earth. Encyc.

This is the whole contents of the entry on leveling. Webster may have referred to an encyclopaedia in writing this passage, but it is not written in small-sized letters. My recognition is that it is a definition and not a citation.

38 However, it has to be admitted that there is one exceptional case. That is, though quite rare, there are phrases and sentences which Webster wrote in normal-sized letters which can still be regarded as citations. The following is the example: W: LEAST, a. Least is often used without the noun to which it refers. “I am the least of the apostles,” that is, the least apostle of all the apostles. 1 Cor. xv.

In this example, Webster put the sentence “I am the least of the apostles” in quotation marks, indicating its source. In such a case as this, the relevant phrases and sentences have been regarded as citations. Incidentally, in contrast to the indications of other sources, Webster did not italicize the titles of books in the Bible, as shown here. There was one more problem about Webster’s verbal examples which was caused by his practice of supplying them to illustrate the usage of words preceded by as. I have regarded such examples as invented, even in the case where names of authors and titles of books are put to them. Examples are: W: GARB, n. 1. Dress; clothes; habit; as the garb of a clergyman or judge. W: OUTSTARE, v.t. To face down; to browbeat; to outface with effrontery; as we say, to stare out of countenance. Shak.

The characteristics of this type of verbal example are that it is written in normal-sized letters and is not put in quotation marks. The more I perused Webster’s verbal examples, the more I came to recognize how little they had been read by many authorities so far. It was surprising that Reed did not seem to have had differentiated Webster’s citations, invented examples and definitions with authors’ names and the titles of works. Besides, to the extent of my knowledge, few authorities have analysed Webster’s verbal examples as closely as Reed. For this reason, it was necessary for me to produce a method for the analysis of the examples by myself. It seems that the method has successfully functioned to compare his verbal examples with Johnson’s.

2.7

Finding a Solution to the Problem of Authorship of Some Works

In tabulating the results of my statistical analyses, there were problems with the authorship of some works which constitute sources of citations. As a rule, I have indicated the names of authors, not the titles of works, in tables in order to show how frequently Johnson and Webster quoted from relevant sources. However, they occasionally put the titles The Tatler (1709-1711), The Guardian (1713) and The Spectator (1711-1712 and 1714), sometimes in full and sometimes in abbreviated form, but without indicating the names of authors. Actually, these are magazines which were edited by Joseph Addison and Sir Richard Steele. To which of them the relevant phrases and sentences should be ascribed is hard to

39 determine. Moreover, there is a historical fact that quite a few men of letters contributed articles to the magazines, namely, George Berkeley, Alexander Pope, John Gay, Jonathan Swift, Eustace Budgell, John Phillips and so on. This situation has sometimes troubled authorities who have tried to analyse Johnson’s citations, especially, by adopting statistical methods. As far as I can judge, the problem has been dealt with in two ways. In his unpublished dissertation, Lewis Freed (1939:45-87) has ascribed the authorship of phrases and sentences from the three magazines entirely to Addison. However, this practice has been censured by Theodore Stenberg, based on his own analysis. Stenberg (1944:203) claimed that “I have come to the conclusion that not much more than ninety percent of the Spectator quotations are Addison’s, and that almost all of those from the Tatler are Steel’s”. In contrast to Freed, Allen Read tried to solve the problem by showing the possible range of the quantity of phrases and sentences from Addison. Specifically, Read (1986b:37) claimed that citations from Addison account for 3.8 percent to 4.3 percent within the range of the M’s in Johnson’s Dictionary; 3.8 percent here refers to citations with the indication of Addison, and 4.3 percent those with the indication of Addison and the three magazines. My solution has been different from those of both Freed’s and Read’s. That is, when Johnson and Webster put the name Addison to their citations, I have regarded them as coming from Addison, but when they put the titles Tatler, Spectator or Guardian to their citations, I have considered them as what they are. In other words, I have not tried to determine the authorship of phrases and sentences taken from the three magazines in the two dictionaries, and instead I have indicated the titles of the magazines in relevant tables. I have also applied this method to other cases where Johnson and Webster took phrases and sentences from the works whose authors are hardly determinable, though such cases have been quite small in number. Another problem was caused by the authorship of a book entitled The Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety (1667). Johnson often quoted from this in his Dictionary. The authorship of this book is not exactly known. However, it is generally acknowledged that the same author wrote a book entitled The Whole Duty of Man (1658) and that there is a strong probability that Richard Allestree, a theologian, wrote this. For instance, Margaret Drabble (1985:1065), an authority on English literature, has claimed that the author of The Whole Duty of Man, therefore that of The Cause of the Decay of Christian Piety, is Allestree. Besides, Allen Reddick (1996:231-232), who has expounded on the compilation process of Johnson’s Dictionary, has said that “Of Allestree’s Whole Duty of Man, Johnson said that he had disliked it as a child but years later recommended it for study to Daniel Astle” and that “Johnson quoted extensively from Allestree’s anonymous Decay of Piety (1667) [...] in the first edition of the Dictionary”. Based on such general acknowledgement, I have determined to ascribe the relevant authorship to Allestree. In determining the authors of some sources of Johnson’s and Webster’s citations, I seem to have encountered the problem which troubled the authorities who tackled the statistical analysis of Johnson’s verbal examples. It is hardly possible to determine the original authors of all of the citations. As far as I can judge, the definitive solution to the problem is yet to be found. I formulated the method as discussed in this sub-section so that it may be helpful to the achievement of the analyses in the thesis, and it has proved to function well for the assessment of the linguistic significance of Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples.

40

2.8

Selecting an Appropriate Version of the English Bible

I have often referred to Johnson’s and Webster’s use of biblical citations. In this regard, it was necessary to select an appropriate version of the English Bible to compare them with relevant original phrases and sentences. As to Johnson’s biblical citations, it has been a customary practice among authorities to use Authorized Version (AV) for such a purpose. For instance, Maurice Quinlan has confirmed this throughout his book, Samuel Johnson: A Layman’s Religion (1964). Seeing no problem in such a practice, I followed it. The problem is, however, which version of the English Bible should be used when referring to biblical citations in Webster’s Dictionary. According to Bruce Metzger’s (2001:81-90) account, two versions of the English Bible were published in the 217 years between AV and Webster’s Dictionary; one is Edward Harwood’s New Testament (1768) published in England, and the other is Charles Thomson’s Bible (1808) published in America. Concerning the former, Metzger (2001:82), showing its title A Liberal Translation of the New Testament, has indicated that it does not include the Old Testament. Webster frequently quoted from both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, if Metzger’s analysis is correct, it can hardly be the case that Webster used Harward’s translation. As for Thomson’s version, Metzger has stated the following: [...] at the time of its publication, [...] it never enjoyed wide popular appeal. Consequently, it had only a limited sale and was not financially successful. Many of the unsold copies were eventually disposed as waste paper. (Metzger 2001:86)

If the situation is as stated here, it is also hardly unthinkable that Webster used this version. However, more to the point, Metzger has stated the following after his discussion of the two versions of the English Bible: Following the initial publication of his American Dictionary in 1828, Webster began to give serious attention to revising the King James Version of the Bible. [...] Webster held that version [AV] in high regard. “Its language,” he said, “is in general correct and perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin; peculiarly adapted to the subjects, and in many passages, uniting sublimity to beautiful simplicity.” (Metzger 2001:91)

Metzger has also quoted a long passage from the preface to Webster’s version of the English Bible which shows why Webster thought of revising it. The passage begins, as: [...] in the lapse of two or three centuries changes have taken place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty, in others, obscure the sense of the original languages. Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version [...]. (Metzger 2001:91)

Induced by Metzger’s discussion and the citation above, I consulted Webster’s version of the Bible, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, in the Common Version. With the Amendments of the Language (1833), and found its preface beginning as follows:

41 The English version of the sacred scriptures, now in general use, was first published in the year 1611, in the reign of James I. Although the translators made many alterations in the language of former versions, yet no small part of the language is the same, as that of the versions made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. (Webster 1833: n. pag. [1st in the “Preface”])

Following this statement, Webster discussed the principles by which he revised AV. The fact that Webster revised AV in this way, publishing it only five years after the Dictionary, seems proof that he usually used AV during the compilation process of the Dictionary. For this reason, I came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to use AV for the purpose of examining Webster’s biblical citations in his Dictionary. Thus, finally, I determined to use AV for the detailed analysis of biblical citations in both Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries. In applying this principle, I think I have successfully shown how the lexicographers used biblical phrases and sentences, respectively.

3:

The Historical Background of Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

3.1

Johnson’s Dictionary and Two Continental Dictionaries

3.1.1 Johnson’s Recognition of the Two Dictionaries It has long been acknowledged that Johnson was strongly influenced by two continental dictionaries when he engaged in compiling his Dictionary. They are the Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca in Italy and the Dictionnaire de l’Académie Françoise in France; the first edition of the former was published in 1612, and that of the latter in 1694. They are both normative dictionaries which were compiled for the refinement of the languages in the respective countries. They were severally compiled and issued by the nationally authorized institutes indicated in their titles: the Accademici della Crusca (the Crusca Academy hereafter) and the Académie Françoise (the French Academy hereafter). Before Johnson began to compile his Dictionary, the Vocabolario had gone through four editions and the Dictionnaire three. Concerning the arguments about the relations between Johnson’s Dictionary and the two dictionaries, James Sledd and Gwin Kolb have summarized them as follows: The influence of the French Academy or the Accademia della Crusca is more likely to be discussed in connection with Johnson’s Preface, when it is said that Johnson, like the academies, hoped to fix his language; that Johnson realized, sooner than the academies, that a language cannot be fixed; but that whatever the academies did for French and Italian, Johnson did for English. (Sledd and Kolb 1955:2-3)

The Crusca Academy was established in 1582 and the French Academy in 1634. For men of letters in England from the 1650’s to the 1750’s, the activities of the two institutes were always an object of envy. Because of the drastic changes in English which had been brought about during the Renaissance, they were generally in great anxiety about its future; assuming the probability of further changes of the language, they feared that their works might not be able to be read by posterity. It was natural for such people to have an ardent wish to stabilize the language in its most desirable style. They recognized the activities of the continental institutes as the best models to follow. In 1679, John Dryden stated as follows in his “Epistle Dedicatory to the Right Honourable Robert Earl of Sunderland” prefixed to Troilus and Cressida, making mention of the chief editor of the Dictionnaire, Favre de Vaugelas: Neither is one Vaugelas sufficient for such a work [the compilation of a normative dictionary]. ‘T was the employment of the whole Academy for many years, for the perfect knowledge of a Tongue was never attain’d by any single person. The Court, the Colledge and the Town, must be joyn’d in it. And as our English is a Composition of the dead and living Tongues, there is requir’d a perfect knowledge, not onely of the Greek and Latine, but of the Old German, the French, and the Italian; and, to help all these, a conversation with those Authors of our own, who have written with the fewest faults in prose and verse. (Dryden 1679:222)

43 In almost the same way, Swift remarked in 1712 in his Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue: And the French, for these last Fifty Years, hath been polishing as much as it will bear, and appears to be declining by the natural Inconstancy of that People, and the Affectation of some late Authors, to introduce and multiply Cant Words [...]. But the English Tongue is not arrived to such a Degree of Perfection, as to make us apprehend any Thoughts of its Decay [...]. (Swift 1712:14-15)

It is almost common knowledge that Johnson’s Dictionary was compiled in this historical context. Johnson was also aware of the activities of the continental institutes, and paid close attention to their dictionaries. In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson stated: To furnish the academicians della Crusca with words of this kind [terms of art and manufacture], a series of comedies called la Fiera, or the Fair, was professedly written by Buonaroti [...]. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [8th (par. 79) in the “Preface”])

And, referring to Paolo Beni, an Italian grammarian who harshly censured the Vocabolario in the 1610’s, Johnson continued: [...] if the aggregated knowledge, and co-operating diligence of the Italian academicians, did not secure them from the censure of Beni; if the embodied criticks of France, when fifty years had been spent upon their work, were obliged to change its oeconomy, and give their second edition another form, I may surely be contented without the praise of perfection [...]. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [10th (par. 94) in the “Preface”])

How Beni criticized the Vocabolario, though this is not a primary concern here, is referred to by Bruno Migliorini (1983:454). In these statements of Johnson’s, though they partially reflect his doubts about the effectiveness of the two institutes, it is clearly revealed that he not only knew the contents of their dictionaries but also tried to examine how much influence they exerted on the Italian and French languages. Then, in the “Preface” to his other dictionary, an abridgement of the original edition issued in 1756, Johnson elucidated the point: Having been long employed in the study and cultivation of the English language, I lately published a dictionary like those compiled by the academies of Italy and France, for the use of such as aspire to exactness of criticism or elegance of style. (Johnson 1756: n. pag. [1st (par. 1) in the “Preface”])

This statement signifies that Johnson perused the two continental dictionaries as essential background materials for his Dictionary. This means that it is highly probable that the dictionaries influenced Johnson’s Dictionary to a considerable extent. This probability, as mentioned at the beginning of this section, has long been suggested by a number of authorities. In this regard, William Wimsatt (1959:67) has even claimed “We are only ‘wise’ if we try to see Johnson’s Dictionary in an international perspective and to assimilate it as far as possible to Italian and French models”. Strangely, however, the contents of Johnson’s Dictionary and those of the two continental dictionaries have hardly been compared until today.

44 3.1.2 Methods for Comparing the Dictionaries The comparison of the three dictionaries will be made in the following sub-sections. The purpose of this task is not to make exhaustive analysis of the dictionaries but to obtain fundamental knowledge about Johnson's indebtedness to the two continental dictionaries in respect of the formulation of the entry and the provision of verbal examples in relation to grammatical information. The scope of the analysis will be mostly limited to the entries on take (v.a.) in Johnson’s Dictionary, tenere in the Vocabolario and prendre in the Dictionnaire. The reason why I selected these entries is that take, tenere and prendre are used quite frequently in English, Italian and French, respectively, and that the words are in common that they are inflected irregularly. It can be said, therefore, that the analysis of the entries is useful to obtain concise knowledge about how the respective dictionaries treated the usage of the languages. Through the analysis, it is also expected that the basic structure of entries in Johnson’s Dictionary will be clarified. Based on this recognition, I will observe the division of entries and the provision of verbal examples and the information on verbal inflections in the dictionaries through the selected entries. However, for the knowledge of how the three dictionaries provide information on verbal inflections, the relevant entries and sub-entries will also be referred to when the necessity arises. In addition to the scope of analysis, a few remarks have to be made about my selection of the editions of the two continental dictionaries. As to the Vocabolario, I will select the first edition published in 1612. This is because the fourth edition (1738), which Johnson is thought to have referred to, was not available to me. However, according to Bruno Migliorini’s (1983:366-67, 450-53, 510 and 516) analysis, the differences between the first edition and the fourth of the Vocabolario are almost limited to the spheres of augmentation of entry-words and the reduction of citations; if the result of his analysis is correct, the use of the first edition for the current purpose will not cause a problem. As for the Dictionnaire, the third edition (1740), which had been published just before Johnson began to compile his Dictionary, will be used.

3.1.3 Ways of Dividing Entries As to the Vocabolario, a flag sign is used for the purpose of dividing an entry. In the entry on tenere, 10 sub-entries are provided at first for the explanation of the senses of tenere, flag signs being placed at the beginning of the second sub-entry and after; the sign is not placed for the first sub-entry. For instance, the first 3 sub-entries in the entry severally begin as follows: Propriamente strignere in maniera con mano, che quel che si strigne non possa ne suggir, ne cadere. [...] ¶ Propriamente strignere in maniera con mano, che quel che si strigne non possa ne fuggir, ne cadere. [...] ¶ In uece di possed possedére, auere in sua podesta.

This example also shows that the sub-entries in the Vocabolario successively continue one after another, not starting at the beginnings of lines. Then, following the explanation of the senses of tenere, 50 other sub-entries are provided for idioms with the use of the same flag sign. These 50 sub-entries begin immediately after the group of sub-entries on the senses of

45 the entry-word without a line feed. In the concrete, sub-entries on idioms tener nascoso, tenere credenza, tener seco, etc. follow in this order after sub-entries provided to indicate the senses of tenere as shown below:

M

M

M

Permantenersi, [...]. non s’arrendere. [...] Tener nascoso: celare, nascondere. [...] Tenere credenza: tener segreto, non manifestare, non-ridire quello, che t’é detto in considenza. [...] Tener seco. Far dimorare appresso di se. Permantenersi, [...].

M

Here again, each sub-entry does not start at the beginning of a line, either. Since the Vocabolario is a dictionary published at the beginning of the seventeenth century, it can hardly be said that it was compiled on the basis of fully matured lexicographic principles. Still, however, it is just conceivable that Johnson was inspired by the way entries were divided in the Vocabolario. If we imagine an entry in which numbers replace flag signs, and each sub-entry starts at the beginning of a line, the structure of the entry is the type adopted in Johnson’s Dictionary. In Johnson’s case, he firstly provided 66 sub-entries in the entry on take to explain the senses of take. The first two sub-entries are as follows: 1. To receive what is offered. 2. To seize what is not given.

Then, following the remaining 64 sub-entries for the explanation of the senses of take, 47 sub-entries on relevant idioms are provided. This begins with the number following 66 like this: 67. To TAKE away. To deprive of. 68. To TAKE away. To set aside; to remove. 69. To TAKE care. To be careful; to be solicitous for; to superintend.

This can be regarded as traces of the successively arranged sub-entries in the Vocabolario. Concerning the Dictionnaire, its provision of sub-entries is enormously complicated. In this dictionary, neither signs nor numbers are used to indicate sub-entries. At the beginning of the entry on prendre, there is a part in which general senses and usage of prendre are explained. Following this part, 20 items are arranged preceded by the word ‘PRENDRE’ in small capitals. It may be possible to regard these items as sub-entries, but each of the items is further divided by the italicized word ‘PRENDRE’. Then, in these sub-items, places for idioms are occasionally inserted. The skeleton of the structure of the first item is as follows: PRENDRE / Prendre à force / Prendre possession / Prendre / Prendre / Prendre

This is in no sense like the structure adopted in Johnson’s Dictionary. As far as the way of dividing entries is concerned, it can hardly be said that the Dictionnaire exerted influence on Johnson’s Dictionary.

46 3.1.4 Ways of Supplying Verbal Examples The three dictionaries treated here have commonality in respect of an abundance of verbal examples. As to the Vocabolario, all verbal examples are extracts from texts; that is, they are citations. The entry on tenere in the dictionary contains 94 citations; these citations are allocated in 50 sub-entries out of 60 in the entry. Most of the citations are from literary works; 52 from Giovanni Boccacio, 14 from Novelle Antiche, 13 from Giovanni Villani, and 15 from other sources. Citations in the Vocabolario are featured by the addition of minute indications of sources. Not only names of authors and titles but also numbers of relevant chapters and sections of works are usually indicated. The indications are placed at the beginnings of citations. Examples are: Bocc.g.2.p.3. Se io ho ben riguardato alle maniere da Pampinea tenute. Nou. ant. 35.8. Il Re gli chiamò, e que’, quando il uidero, tennersi.

In addition to such minute indications, the “Tavola dell’ Abbreviatvre”, the table of abbreviations, is attached to the dictionary. This table gives particulars about the sources of citations. For instance, the table explains the sources as follows, referring to abbreviations in the body of the dictionary: Bocc.lett. / Boccaccio lettera / Lettera del Boccacio à M. Pino de’ Rossi. stamp. (trans. Bocc.lett. / Boccaccio’s Letters / The Letters of Boccacio addressed to M. Pino: Published by Rossi.) Dan.In.c.1. / Dante nell’ Inferno, canto primo / Poema, o vero la diuina Commedia di Dante Alighieri, corrette dagli Accademici della Crusca. Stamp. in Firenze in Ottauo. (trans. Dan.In.c.1 / the first canto in Dante’s “Inferno” / originally a poem of the Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri. Revised by the Accademici della Crusca: Published in Firenze in octavo.)

In this way, no less than 600 sources of citations are indicated in detail in the table. This table, accompanied by the indications of sources given in the body of the dictionary, clearly shows how much importance the editors of the Vocabolario attached to citations from literary works. In the Vocabolario, invented examples are basically not supplied, though it cannot be denied that there is a possibility that the editors changed some original phrases and sentences. When verbal examples in the entry on tenere in Vocabolario are compared with those in the entry on take in Johnson’s Dictionary, it becomes found that the latter are larger in number than the former. In the entry on take, Johnson allocated as many as 180 citations even in its limited sphere of 66 sub-entries provided for the explanation of the senses of take; the citations are dispersed throughout the sub-entries. In respect of the indications of sources, however, Johnson’s Dictionary hardly bears comparison with the Vocabolario. Johnson frequently changed the ways of abbreviating names of authors and titles of works. No consistent rule is observable there. He sometimes gave indications as “Waller.”, “Dryden.” and “Shakespeare’s Hamlet.”, and sometimes as “Shak.”, “Sh.” and “Dryd.” This is also pointed out by Rüdiger Schreyer. He has said the following:

47 Frequently there is no one-to-one relationship between a string and its referent. Different strings may refer, for instance, to the same author or identical strings to different authors. Pope is referred to as Po., Pop., Pope, or Pope’s, sometimes followed by a title, sometimes not. Shakespeare is referred to by the strings Sh., Sha., Shak., Shake., Shakes, Shakesp., Shakespeare, Shakespeare’s [...]. (Schreyer 2000:63)

In addition to this inconsistent practice, Johnson did not provide a table equivalent to the “Tavola dell’ Abbreviatvre” in the Vocabolario. The only exception is the case of biblical citations; Johnson almost always indicated their relevant chapters and sections of the Bible, as “Jer. xxxv.17.” and “Deut. xxiv.6.”. In this way, citations in the Vocabolario differ from those in Johnson’s Dictionary in respect of quantity and indications of sources. Still, it can safely be said that Johnson basically tried to adopt the way the editors of the Vocabolario had adopted in supplying their citations. In contrast to the Vocabolario and Johnson’s Dictionary, not a single citation was supplied in the Dictionnaire. The Dictionnaire certainly contains an abundance of verbal examples, but they appear to be entirely invented ones. In a sense, the verbal examples in the Dictionnaire are almost countless, and may be regarded as by far the largest in number among the three dictionaries. However, this can be said on condition that such phrases as shown in the following passages are included in the count: On dit, Prendre son parti, pour dire, Se résoudre, se décider, choisir un moyen, un expedient dans une affaire difficile & doute use. On dit, qu’Un cheval prend le mors aux dents, pour dire, qu’il s’emporte & qu’on ne peut le retenir.

These passages from the entry on prendre also show another aspect of verbal examples in the Dictionnaire; the examples are often paraphrased in other expressions. This combination of the two, an invented example and its paraphrase(s), is supplied here and there in the dictionary. Though not so frequently as the editors of the Dictionnaire, Johnson also supplied invented examples, paraphrasing them in other expressions. He did this mainly to provide grammatical information, which will be discussed in Section 8.1.3. It may possibly be said that he followed the precedent of the Dictionnaire in supplying his invented examples in that way.

3.1.5 Information on Verbal Inflections in the Dictionaries The analysis in this sub-section concerns the provision of grammatical information on verbs of highest frequency in the three dictionaries. In the Vocabolario, information on verbal inflections is not provided at all. Firstly, in the entry on tenere, no relevant explanation is made. Secondly, not a single entry and sub-entry on the inflected forms of the verb, such as tèngo, tiènni, terrò and tènga, is provided in the dictionary. For this reason, the Vocabolario can be regarded as a literary dictionary in essence, having little relevance to the grammar of the language. In contrast to the Vocabolario, Johnson’s Dictionary goes into fair detail about verbal inflections. The entry on take begins thus: “preterite took, part. pass. taken, sometimes took”. In addition to this information, Johnson’s Dictionary also contains the entries on the

48 words taken and took. Johnson’s treatment of these inflected forms will be analysed in detail in Section 5.2 through the comparison with Webster’s. Currently, it will be sufficient to point out that in these entries Johnson gave a grammatical account about the inflected forms and sometimes illustrated the usage of the words with citations. As to the Dictionnaire, the entry on prendre provides the following paradigm: Je prends, tu prends, il prend, nous prenons, vous prenez, ils prennent. Je prenois. J’ai pris. Je prendrai. Prends, prenez. Que je prenne. Que je prisse. Je prendrois, &c.

This paradigm illustrates the editors’ concern about verbal inflections. Among the inflected forms shown in the paradigm, the editors treated pris separately as follows: PRIS, ISE. part. pass. Il a presque toutes les significations de son verbe. Une ville prise. Un posson pris dans les filets. Un homme pris de vin. [...] Au jeu du Lansquenet, on dit, qu’Un homme est pris, Quand sa carte a été faite. Il avoit carte double & il a été pris le premier, il a été le premier pris.

The description about pris consists of 18 lines, in which 13 verbal examples are included; 4 among the 13 are paraphrased in other expressions. This, however, does not mean that an entry was provided for pris. This word is treated in the entry on prendre. It is very probable that Johnson was stimulated by the Dictionnaire in his treatment of verbal inflections. In the English dictionaries before Johnson, inflected forms of verbs had hardly been treated. Johnson can be said to have developed the lexicographical technique seen in the Dictionnaire in this respect by providing entries on inflected forms of verbs and treating them more minutely than the editors of the dictionary.

3.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis Until today, the historical background of Johnson’s Dictionary has been mainly observed from the viewpoint of the history of English lexicography. Many authorities have exerted themselves to clarify the historical significance of the Dictionary from this viewpoint, revealing its various notable aspects. However, as the saying goes, we cannot see the forest for the trees. Such an enormous work as Johnson’s Dictionary is, its total picture will not be able to be seen only from such a viewpoint. A lot of historical literature illustrates that Johnson was strongly conscious of the two continental dictionaries. In spite of this situation, however, the body of his Dictionary has rarely been collated with the bodies of the two dictionaries. Since Johnson compiled the Dictionary in the historical context that men of letters were generally envious of the two dictionaries, the truest historical background of his Dictionary will not be clarified without such collation. Though the focus of my attention in this section is extremely limited, it may safely be said that Johnson was considerably influenced by the two continental dictionaries within the range of entries on verbs of highest frequency and those on their inflected forms. Concerning the former, especially, they are entries in which Johnson made exertions differently from his preceding English lexicographers; I (Miyoshi 1992:601-606) have once discussed that J. K. (John Kersey?) listed verbs of high frequency and their inflected forms

49 in his New English Dictionary (1702), but he did not expound on any of them. In respect of the basic arrangement of sub-entries in entries on verbs of highest frequency, Johnson can be claimed to have imitated the Vocabolario. No trace of his imitation of the Dictionnaire can be seen in this respect. As to the way of supplying verbal examples, the Vocabolario also exerted considerable influence on him, but the possibility of the Dictionnaire’s influence cannot totally be denied. With regard to the treatment of verbal inflections, it can be said that Johnson developed the way used in the Dictionnaire. The analysis made in this section indicates that Johnson was considerably conscious of the provision of grammatical information. This strongly supports the probability that he frequently supplied verbal examples, one of the most notable characteristics in the Dictionary, to illustrate grammar and usage of the language.

3.2

Johnson’s Dictionary and Priestley’s Grammars

3.2.1 Three Perspectives on Johnson’s Treatment of English Grammar Perspectives are varied among authorities about Johnson’s treatment of English grammar in his Dictionary. James Sledd and Gwin Kolb are critical of Johnson in this respect. They (1955:177) have claimed that “As a linguistic theorist [...] and as a grammarian, Johnson can hardly claim high rank”. This claim is based on their analysis of Johnson’s “Grammar of the English Tongue” attached to the Dictionary. The same authorities (1955:12) have also said that the material is not worth much discussion. No one will be able to protect Johnson from their censure. Actually, Johnson’s “Grammar” is carelessly written, and the section on syntax in it consists of no more than 18 lines. Differently from Sledd and Kolb, Tetsuro Hayashi has not flatly disapproved of Johnson’s treatment of English grammar. With the recognition that Johnson’s Dictionary was full of grammatical information, Hayashi (1978:95) has claimed that “As one of the prerequisites of a grammatical dictionary, Johnson evidently held the idea that dictionary should give importance to commonness and generality of words and phrasal expressions”. Hayashi’s claim is based on the following statement of Johnson’s in the “Preface” to his Dictionary: The words, thus selected and disposed, are grammatically considered: they are referred to the different parts of speech; traced, when they are irregularly inflected, through their various terminations; and illustrated by observations, not indeed of great or striking importance, separately considered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, and hitherto neglected or forgotten by English grammarians. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 42) in the “Preface”])

De Witt Starnes and Gertrude Noyes observed the body of the Dictionary, remarking as follows: Special classifications of words [...] are indicated with more or less consistency [...] and grammar is treated both in an introductory section and throughout the word list. (Starnes and Noyes 1948:195)

50 Though the legitimacy of this statement is yet to be examined, it sounds more convincing than Sledd and Kolb’s and Hayashi’s statements because of the extensive scope of their investigation.

3.2.2 Johnson and Two Leading Grammarians in the Eighteenth Century Strangely, however, Johnson’s treatment of English grammar has hardly been observed in the context of the history of English grammar. Johnson was a lexicographer at a time when work on the grammar of the language began to make significant progress. Sterling Leonard has correctly depicted the situation as follows: Whereas fewer than fifty writings on grammar, rhetoric, criticism, and linguistic theory have been listed for the first half of the eighteenth century, and still fewer for all the period before 1600, the publications in the period 1750-1800 exceeded two hundred titles. (Leonard 1962:12)

As he compiled his Dictionary at that time, Johnson cannot be assumed to have been a lexicographer isolated from the trend. However, this is a matter to which little attention has been paid. Even Starnes and Noyes, though extensively perusing the grammatical aspects of Johnson’s Dictionary as mentioned above, seem to have been almost indifferent to the historical context. Among other eighteenth-century grammarians, Robert Lowth and Joseph Priestley are known as the forerunners of modern English grammarians. The former formulated various rules for the language from a prescriptive viewpoint, basing himself on the ‘reason’ which was the spirit of the time. The latter, who was basically descriptive, laid special emphasis on the use of the language. This difference between the two grammarians is reflected in the following passages from their grammars: Lowth, A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762): It is with reason expected of every person of a liberal education, and much more it is indispensably required of every one who undertakes to inform or entertain the public, that he should be able to express himself with propriety and accuracy. (Lowth 1762:viii-ix) Priestley, The Rudiments of English Grammar, 1st edition (1761): Language is a method of conveying our ideas to the minds of other persons; and the grammar of any language is a collection of observations on the structure of it, and a system of rules for the proper use of it. (Priestley 1761:19)

To be more specific, Priestley criticized Lowth as follows in his second edition of the Rudiments (1769): Some persons, however, use the singular of this word [means], and would say, lest this mean should fail, and Dr. Lowth pleads for it; but custom has so formed our ears, that they do not easily admit this form of the word, notwithstanding it is more agreeable to the general analogy of the language. (Priestley 1769:61) Dr. Lowth says, that grammar requires us to say, Whom do you think me to be? But in conversation we always hear, Who do you think me to be? (Priestley 1769:85)

51 In spite of this difference, however, when the works of the two grammarians are collated with Johnson’s Dictionary, respectively, it becomes obvious that both figures were strongly influenced by the Dictionary, thus revealing Johnson’s considerable contribution to the development of English grammar. Daisuke Nagashima is one of a few authorities who investigated Johnson’s Dictionary in relation to the history of English grammar. Based on this investigation, he (1983:241-247) has discussed the relations between the Dictionary and Lowth’s Short Introduction. According to Nagashima (1983:244), Lowth systematized Johnson’s grammatical comments in the body of his Dictionary. In order to justify this opinion, Nagashima (1983:241-244) has exemplified how Lowth introduced the contents of Johnson’s usage notes into his Short Introduction. Nagashima (1983:243-244) has also proved that Lowth often made use of Johnson’s citations in his Dictionary, claiming that Johnson’s Dictionary was instrumental in bringing about a turning point in the history of English grammar. Whether Nagashima’s investigation of Johnson’s Dictionary and Lowth’s grammar has been sufficient or not to justify such a claim, it is to his credit that he has discussed Johnson’s Dictionary in the historical context of the development of English grammar. In a sense, however, it was natural for Lowth to refer to Johnson’s Dictionary because both aimed to stabilize the usage of English. In the following sub-sections, I will aim to elucidate how Johnson’s Dictionary exerted influence on Priestley whose view of English grammar was essentially opposed to Johnson’s; this analysis is an extension of the one which I published in 1984 and 1987 and was partially introduced into one of Nagashima’s works (1988:132-140).

3.2.3 A Change in Priestley’s Opinion about Johnson’s Dictionary As discussed in the previous section, Priestley published his first edition of the Rudiments in 1761. This is his first grammar. In this edition, he referred to Johnson’s Dictionary as follows: It is not denied that use hath been made of other Grammars, and particularly of Mr. Johnson’s in compiling this: But it is apprehended, that there is so much that is properly original, both in the materials and the disposition of them in this, as is more than sufficient to clear a work of such a nature from the charge of plagiarism. (Priestley 1761:iv)

It is easily seen that Priestley did not name Johnson in a positive manner here; he even seems to have referred to Johnson merely to avoid the censure of plagiarism. This shows that Priestley at this stage did not highly appreciate Johnson’s knowledge of English grammar. In this situation, it is virtually inconceivable that Johnson’s Dictionary exerted noteworthy influence on Priestley. However, Priestley’s opinion about Johnson marked a significant change less than two years after that. In 1762, Priestley published his second grammar, A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. At the beginning of this work, Priestley bestowed the highest eulogy on Johnson’s Dictionary. He remarked:

52 That immense and valuable performance of Mr. Johnson’s contains an account of almost all the senses in which all the words of the English language are used: and it is very possible, from little more than the examples he hath given from our best writers of the use of every word in every sense, to compose a grammar of all the varieties of manner in which words are used, both as to their inflection and disposition, which, together with the dictionary, would be a complete system of our language as now used. (Priestley 1762:218)

This time, Johnson’s Dictionary was an indispensable reference book for Priestley to develop his view of English grammar. It is almost certain that this notable change of Priestley’s opinion about Johnson was brought about by the fact that his concern shifted from one part of Johnson’s Dictionary to the other. Evidently, the passage from the Course of Lectures above refers to the body of Johnson’s Dictionary. At the stage of the first edition of the Rudiments, Priestley is conjectured to have read only Johnson’s “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary; as mentioned at the beginning of this section, Johnson’s “Grammar” is far from perfect. In 1769, Priestley published his second edition of the Rudiments. In the preface to this edition, Priestley stated: I must not conclude this preface, without making my acknowledgements to Mr. Johnson, whose admirable dictionary has been of the greatest use to me in the study of our language. It is a pity he had not formed as just, and as extensive an idea of English grammar. (Priestley 1769:18)

After observing Priestley’s change in his opinion about Johnson, it becomes evident that the first sentence in this passage refers to the body of Johnson’s Dictionary and the second sentence to the “Grammar” attached to the Dictionary; Priestley reviewed each of them severally, and it is not that he said that Johnson’s Dictionary was totally deficient in grammatical information. However, James Sledd and Gwin Kolb (1955:178) have quoted the very same passage, trying to prove their own claim as follows: The inferiority of Johnson the grammarian to Johnson the lexicographer was to become almost a commonplace. As Priestley said, moreover, the weakness of Johnson’s grammar was cause for real regret; for Johnson might have commanded public attention at the very moment when the study of English was becoming scholastically respectable. (Sledd and Kolb 1955:178)

In this claim, Sledd and Kolb have manifestly associated the second sentence in Priestley’s passage with Johnson’s knowledge about English grammar. It can hardly be thought that Sledd and Kolb were aware of the change in Priestley’s opinion about Johnson.

3.2.4 The Influence of Johnson’s Dictionary on Priestley In the second edition of his Rudiments, Priestley referred to Johnson 5 times in total in discussing usage in the language; he took objection to Johnson 2 times and approved of him 3 times. Specifically, Priestley criticized Johnson to clarify his unique view of a conjunctive form and the use of lesser. As to the former, Priestley (1769:90) said, “Mr. Johnson assigns no conjunctive form to the preter tense; but the analogy of the language seems to require that both the tenses be put upon a level in this respect”; regrettably, I have

53 not been able to find Johnson’s words which Priestley referred to here. As to the latter, Priestley stated: The word lesser, though condemned by Mr. Johnson, and other English grammarians, is often used by good writers. The greater number frequently fly before the lesser. Smollett’s Voltaire, vol. 1. p. 172. The kings of France were the chief of several greater vassals by whom they were very ill obeyed, and of a greater number of lesser ones. Ib. [ibid.] vol. 6. p. 172. (Priestley 1769:67)

Johnson’s opinion about the word is described in the body of his Dictionary. In the entry on lesser, Johnson said: A barbarous corruption of less, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparatives in er; afterwards adopted by poets, and then by writers of prose.

Concerning lesser, Johnson was not the only one who opposed the use of the word. Sterling Leonard (1962:113 and 267) has pointed out that Lowth was also critical about the word, showing the fact that Lowth wholly approved of Johnson’s opinion quoted above. However, for the purpose of clarifying his view of lesser, as well as that of a conjunctive form, Priestley named none other than Johnson. This situation signifies that Priestley often regarded Johnson as a representative of a group of grammarians whose view of the word was opposite to his. With regard to Priestley’s approval of Johnson’s opinions, it concerns three points: the use of a grammatical term, syllables and the usage of should. I will discuss each of the points below in this order. Firstly, as to the use of a grammatical term, Priestley gave preference to Johnson’s oblique case over Lowth’s objective case as follows: I prefer the term oblique case of Dr. Johnson to objective case, which Dr. Lowth uses. [...] Now the objective case can only stand for the accusative, in which the object of an affirmative sentence is put; but oblique comprehends other relations, and other cases, in which this form of the pronoun is used [...]. (Priestley 1769:82)

As Priestley suggested, Johnson usually used the term oblique case in his Dictionary. Examples are: HER. pron. 2.: The oblique case of she. HERSELF. pronoun.: The female personal pronoun, in the oblique cases reciprocal. HIMSELF. pron. 3.: In the oblique cases it has a reciprocal signification. ME. 1.: The oblique case of I.

Secondly, on the point of syllables, Priestley remarked: There are some Disyllables which would not admit the termination [er] or [est] without a harshness in the pronunciation. It is, therefore, usual to compare them in the same manner as Polysyllables, without any change of termination. Of these, Mr. Johnson has given us the following enumeration; viz. such as terminate in, some, as fulsome. ive, as massive. ful, as careful. dy, as woody.

54 ing, as trifling. fy, as puffy. ous, as porous. ky, as rocky; except lucky. less, as careless. ed, as wretched. my, as roomy. id, as candid. py, as ropy; except happy. ent, as recent. ain, as certain. ry, as hoary. (Priestley 1769:68)

Priestley here referred to the following part of Johnson’s “Grammar”: Dissyllables are seldom compared if they terminate in some, as fulsome, toilsome; in ful, as careful, spleenful, dreadful; in ing, as trifling, charming; in ous, as porous; in less, as careless, harmless; in ed, as wretched; in id, as candid; in al, as mortal; in ent, as recent, fervent; in ain, as certain; in ive, as missive; in dy, as woody; in fy, as puffy; in ky, as rocky, except lucky; in my, as roomy; in ny as skinny; in py, as ropy, except happy; in ry, as hoary. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th in the “Grammar”])

Thirdly, Priestley accepted Johnson’s opinion on the usage of should as follows: The auxiliary verb shall reverts to its original signification in its conditional form, when if, or any other particle expressing uncertainty, is prefixed to it. I should go, means I ought to go; but if I should go, means if it happens that I go. This observation is Mr. Johnson’s. (Priestley 1769:97)

Here, Priestley is assumed to have referred to the entry relevant to the word in Johnson’s Dictionary. In the entry on should, Johnson had explained the usage of the word as follows: I SHOULD go. It is my business or duty to go. If I SHOULD go. If it happens that I go.

Priestley’s acceptance of Johnson’s opinion indicates that Johnson’s Dictionary was highly important for Priestley to formulate his view of English grammar. In addition to the point, there was at least one time when Priestley incorporated Johnson’s opinion without making mention of his name. In the entry on obey (v.a.) in his Dictionary, Johnson explained the use of to before obey as follows, quoting from the Bible and John Milton. ‘To OBEY. v.a. 2.’: It had formerly sometimes to before the person obeyed, which Addison has mentioned as one of Milton’s latinisms; but it is frequent in old writers; when we borrowed the French word we borrowed the syntax, obeir au roi. His servants ye are, to whom ye obey. Rom. vi. 16. Nor did they not perceive the evil plight In which thy were, or the fierce pains not feel, Yet to their general’s voice they soon obey’d. Milton.

This opinion of Johnson’s was incorporated into Priestley’s second edition of the Rudiments together with the citations like this:

55 Agreeably to the Latin and French idioms, the preposition to is sometimes used in conjunction with such words as, in those languages, govern the dative case; but this construction does not seem to suit the English language. His servants ye are, to whom ye obey. Romans. And to their general’s vice thy soon obeyed. Milton. (Priestley 1769:116)

3.2.5 Generalization of the Analysis At the time when ‘reason’ was highly valued, Priestley’s view of English grammar was inevitably obscured by Lowth’s. Nowadays, however, Priestley is generally regarded as a forerunner of descriptive grammarians. Albert Baugh has commented on Priestley as follows: One must come down almost to our own day to find an attitude so tolerant and so liberal. And the doctrine of usage is so fundamental to all sound discussion of linguistic matters that it is important to recognize the man in whom it first found real expression. (Baugh 2002:285)

Leonard also has this to say: Priestley is undoubtedly the first writer in English, and apparently the only one in the eighteenth century, to take a clear and reasonably consistent view of usage. (Leonard 1962:142)

It is surely worth noting that such a leading grammarian formulated his theory, consulting Johnson’s Dictionary as an indispensable reference book.

3.3

Webster’s Dictionary and American Education

3.3.1 The Prevailing Attitudes to the Historical Background of Webster’s Dictionary

It has been a widely held opinion among authorities on Webster that he compiled his Dictionary against the backdrop of fiery anti-English sentiment of the American people right after American Independence. As I pointed out at the end of Section 1.3, this view is thought to have seriously obscured the linguistic aspects of the Dictionary and the historical significance of his verbal examples, causing problems which should not be left neglected. The authorities who have championed such a perspective are large in number. To cite a few instances, James Murray (1900:43) claimed in 1900 that Webster “was fired with the idea that America ought to have a dictionary of its own form of English, independent of British usage”. Kemp Malone (1925:28) stated that “His labors [Webster’s tasks for compiling his Dictionary] were destined to extend over more than twenty years, but never once did he lose sight of this patriotic purpose”. Albert Baugh (2002:369) remarked that “Webster was a patriot who carried his sentiment from questions of political and social organization over into matters of language”. It has been usual for such authorities to refer to the following passage from the “Preface” to Webster’s Dictionary as the basis of their assertion:

56 It is not only important, but, in a degree necessary, that the people of this country, should have an American Dictionary of the English Language; for, although the body of the language is the same as in England, and it is desirable to perpetuate that sameness, yet some differences must exist. Language is the expression of ideas; and if the people of one country cannot preserve an identity of ideas, they cannot retain an identity of language. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st (par. 7) in the “Preface”])

Additionally, it has apparently been advantageous for them that the title of Webster’s Dictionary is adorned with the word ‘American’: An American Dictionary of the English Language. Baugh (2002:369) claimed that “By stressing American usage [...] he [Webster] contrived in large measure to justify the title of his work”.

3.3.2 The Historical Facts against the Prevailing Perspective As a matter of fact, however, neither the passage from the “Preface” quoted above nor the title of Webster’s Dictionary is sufficient to prove the correctness of their perspective. A few authorities have taken objection to the prevailing perspective based on convincing historical facts. Richard Rollins is one of them. He has pointed out Webster’s pro-British attitude: When the second American edition was published in 1841, he sent a copy to Queen Victoria. Significantly, he told the person carrying it to her that “our common language is one of the ties that bind the two nations together; I hope the works I have executed will manifest to the British nation that the Americans are not willing to suffer it to degenerate on this side of the Atlantic.” (Rollins 1980:127)

The fact that Rollins has mentioned here suggests the possibility that the passage from the “Preface” can be interpreted in a different way. Referring to the differences between Webster’s Dictionary and his preparatory work for it, the Compendious Dictionary of the English Language (1806), Rollins has made the following comments: Webster himself indicated that his view had changed immensely. “It is not only important, but, in a degree necessary,” he said in the opening pages, “that the people of this country, should have an American Dictionary of the English language.” Notice that he did not advocate the development of a new language, or even a new dialect, separate and distinct from that spoken in England. Instead, he perceived himself to be writing merely an American dictionary of the English language, which is of course a very different thing from creating a whole new language. And he further explained his position, noting that the body of the language was basically the same as that of England. He added a significant statement: “it is desirable to perpetuate that sameness.” [...] Half a century earlier he had despised England and all that it stood for. Now he told the queen that he hoped his dictionary might furnish evidence that the “genuine descendants of English ancestors born on the west of the Atlantic, have not forgotten either the land or the language of their fathers.” (Rollins 1980:126-127)

Rollins’s interpretation of the passage can be regarded as coinciding with the contents of Webster’s message to Queen Victoria. The collation of a passage from the preface to

57 Webster’s preparatory work for that to his Dictionary reveals how Webster’s patriotism had changed by 1828, thus proving the correctness of Rollins’s perspective: the Compendious Dictionary: From a different class of men, if such are to be found, whose criticisms would sink the literature of this country, even lower than the distorted representations of foreign reviewers; whose veneration for trans-atlantic authors leads them to hold American writers in unmerited contempt; from such men I neither expect nor solicit favor. Men who take pains to find and to exhibit to the world, proofs of our national inferiority in talents and acquirements, are certainly not destined to decide the ultimate fate of this performance. (Webster 1806:xxiii) the American Dictionary: I do not indeed expect to add celebrity to the names of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull, Hamilton, Belknap, Ames, Mason, Kent, Hare, Silliman, Cleaveland, Walsh, Irving, and many other Americans distinguished by their writings or by their science; but it is with pride and satisfaction, that I can place them, as authorities, on the same page with those of Boyle, Hooker, Milton, Dryden, Addison, Ray, Milner, Cowper, Davy, Thomson and Jameson. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [2nd (par. 13) in the “Preface”])

The collation of the two passages above clearly illustrates that Webster’s patriotism became moderated after 1806. What is significant about Rollins is that he was aware of the change in Webster’s thought. This is a point which has hardly been reflected in the accounts of the authorities of the prevailing perspective. Malone (1925:26-30) has quoted various passages from Webster’s writings with the attempt to prove the relations between his anti-English sentiment and the Dictionary, but most of the writings were those in and before 1806. As to the title of the Dictionary, Allen Read, who also recognized the change in Webster’s thought similarly to Rollins, has pointed out a notable fact: Webster’s linguistic outlook continually underwent an evolution throughout his long life, in general in the direction of conservatism. It is fascinating to watch the changes as they gradually took place. They are typified by the alteration of the title of his great dictionary. On June 4, 1800, he announced that he had in hand ‘A Dictionary of the American Language’, but when it was completed, twenty-eight years later, it bore the title AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. (Read 1986a:199)

When observed thus, Webster can hardly be thought to have compiled his Dictionary motivated by anti-English sentiment; Webster’s Dictionary can no longer be regarded as a product of the political patriotism caused by American Independence.

3.3.3 American Aspects of Webster’s Dictionary The prevailing perspective described in the previous section further implies that Webster compiled his Dictionary with the intention of developing an American English independent of British English. However, it has to be noted that Webster’s Dictionary acquired popularity in England rather than in America. Richard Rollins has pointed out the following fact:

58 The American Dictionary was perfectly acceptable in England. The first edition of 2,500 copies was quickly followed by an English edition of 3,000 [...]. When his publisher went bankrupt, copies of the English edition were sold without change in America. (Rollins 1980: 126-27)

This historical fact suggests that Webster’s Dictionary was useful in England for the study of English and that Webster did not make much effort to develop the American style of English by compiling his Dictionary. To what extent, however, is Webster’s Dictionary American? One way to find an answer to this question is to analyse Webster’s treatment of Americanisms. However, this is a matter which has often caused controversy. On the one hand, some authorities have assumed that Webster’s Dictionary contains a considerable number of Americanisms. For example, Morton Benson (1986:7) has claimed that “One noteworthy feature of Webster’s work was his inclusion of many Americanisms, British dictionaries having paid scant attention to such forms”. Saying thus, Benson (1986:7) cited some examples of Americanisms in Webster’s Dictionary: caribou, hickory, moccasin, moose, squash, succotash, tomahawk and wigwam. Herbert Morton (1994:44) also believed that Webster made efforts to include Americanisms in his Dictionary: “Webster took pride in the introduction of Americanisms – new words and new senses of old words that had arisen to meet the language needs of the new nation”. On the other hand, some authorities have been dubious of Webster’s treatment of Americanisms. Joseph Friend (1967:49) has asserted, “An examination of the Americanisms included in the book [Webster’s Dictionary] shows that [...] his coverage is very far from thorough, and his omissions are sometimes hard to account for”. Joseph Reed (1962:101) has remarked that “There were few genuine Americanisms” in Webster’s Dictionary. Whether Americanisms in Webster’s Dictionary are large or small in number depends on the subjectivity of the viewers. Additionally, the definite number of Americanisms in Webster’s Dictionary is yet to be determined. For these reasons, if we want to know something about Webster’s collection of the Americanisms, it becomes necessary to read his own statements concerning the point. Again, however, there is a problem here. In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Webster stated: A great number of words in our language require to be defined in a phraseology accommodated to the condition and institutions of the people in these states, and the people of England must look to an American Dictionary for a correct understanding of such terms. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [2nd (par. 9) in the “Preface”])

In this passage, Webster clearly emphasized the necessity for the treatment of Americanisms. He, on the other hand, said in the “Introduction” to the Dictionary as follows: As to Americanisms, so called, I have not been able to find many words, in respectable use, which can be so denominated. These I have admitted and noted as peculiar to this country. I have fully ascertained that most of the new words charged to the coinage of this country, were first used in England. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [46th in the “Introduction”])

Webster’s statement here is seemingly inconsistent with that in the passage from the “Preface”. In order to solve this problem, it becomes necessary to clarify Webster’s notion of Americanism and to know a historical limitation in treating the words at his time. For

59 this purpose, it is beneficial to take a glance at the history of dictionaries specializing in Americanisms. The first dictionary of Americanisms is John Pickering’s Vocabulary, or Collection of Words and Phrases Which Have Been Supposed to be Peculiar to the United States of America. It was published in 1816, ten years before Webster’s Dictionary. According to James Smith (1979:49), the entry words listed in this dictionary are actually “not ‘peculiar to the United States’”. This is the only dictionary of Americanisms during Webster’s lifetime. The second one was published more than thirty years after Pickering’s. It is John Barlett’s Dictionary of Americanism (1848). Margaret Bryant (Thornton 1962:xiii) has commented on the dictionary that it “showed that Pickering’s attitude had now been replaced by an interest in dialect for its own sake.” In 1889, John S. Farmer published the book Americanism Old and New. Then, in 1912, Richard Thornton laid the foundation for the scientific study of Americanisms with his epoch-making American Glossary, which was to become one of indispensable reference books for Sir William Craigie and James Hulbert in compiling their renowned Dictionary of American English on Historical Principles (1944). Thornton collected Americanisms based on the following definitions: I II III

Forms of speech now obsolete or provincial in England, which survive in the U.S. Words and phrases of distinctly American origin Nouns which indicate quadrupeds, birds, trees, articles of food, & c., that are distinctly American IV Names of persons and classes of persons, and of places V Words which have assumed a new meaning VI Words and phrases of which I [Thornton] have found earlier examples in American than in English writers (Thornton 1962:v)

It took approximately one hundred years after Pickering’s dictionary that the notion of Americanism became clearly conceptualized in this way. Since the dictionaries of Americanisms developed as described above, it would be almost unreasonable to criticize Webster for his imperfect treatment of the words in his Dictionary. There was obviously a historical limitation for Webster to treat them in a satisfactory way; Webster’s treatment of Americanisms should not be interpreted from our modern linguistic viewpoint as Friend and Reed have done. However, in order to clarify Webster’s notion of Americanisms, Thornton’s definitions of the term are highly suggestive. Webster’s notion revealed in the “Preface” is judged to correspond to Thornton’s definition V; and Webster’s expressions in the “Introduction” to Thornton’s definitions II and III. In the “Preface”, Webster remarked that words had to be defined so that they are accommodated to the condition of the American people. In the “Introduction”, he said he had not been able to find many words of American origin. That is, he is observed to have distinguished the newly introduced senses and the newly introduced words. Therefore, Webster’s seemingly inconsistent statements in the “Preface” and the “Introduction” suggest that he attached more importance to the senses of words of American origin than the words of American origin themselves. Still, however, it cannot be said that Webster laid particular emphasis on American senses. Adding information irrelevant to America, Webster was often highly objective in the treatment of the senses of relevant words. Examples are:

60 CENT, n. 1. A hundred. In commerce, per cent. denotes a certain rate by the hundred; as, ten per cent. is ten in the hundred, whether profit or loss. This rate is called percentage. 2. In the United States of America, a copper coin whose value is the hundredth part of a dollar. DOLLAR, n. A silver coin of Spain and of the United States, of the value of one hundred cents, or four shillings and sixpence sterling. The dollar seems to have been originally a German coin, and in different parts of Germany, the name is given to coins of different value.

In the second example here, Webster fairly correctly estimated the origin of dollar. The OED reads that dollar is “The English name for the German thaler, a large silver coin, of varying value, current in the German states from the sixteenth century” with the description that the word was introduced into English in 1553. Webster’s treatment of Americanisms indicates that his Dictionary is not so American as the authorities who have advocated the prevailing perspective seem to believe. It will be necessary here to note that the renowned “Webster’s way of spelling”, which is usually regarded as one aspect of the American style of English, should not be exaggerated. For instance, Joseph Friend, emphasizing its importance, has stated the following: In orthography the American Dictionary shows some increase in conservatism but no basic change in Webster’s position over twenty years, as various commentators have noted. (Friend 1967:54)

Opposing such a perspective, Ronald Wells claimed thus: Certain changes which are the basis for present-day differences between British and American practice were effected, particularly in the four classes represented above (honor, music, center, defense). Regarding these innovations, however, there is evidence that in many cases the forms which Webster chose to include were already current, such as the –or ending [...]. (Wells 1973:62)

Then, citing passages from historic documents which support his viewpoint, Wells concluded that: A more balanced assessment of Webster’s influence on American orthography, then, would give him some credit for settling a number of points of divided usage, but would hesitate to attribute to him very much greater shaping influence on the language. (Wells 1973:63)

Wells’s opinion is convincing, especially when his passages from historic documents are referred to. However, the most convincing will be Webster’s own statements. In his “Introduction” to the Dictionary, Webster provided a section discussing orthography (1828: no. pag. [29th to 32nd in the “Introduction”]), and there he often made such statements as when a word form “had been from time immemorial, the established orthography, why unsettle the practice?” (1828: no. pag. [30th in the “Introduction”]) and “I have determined to conform the orthography to established English analogies” (1828: no. pag. [31st in the “Introduction”]). However much Webster may have tried to change the spelling of English so that it might conform to the pronunciation before 1807, the year when he began compiling the Dictionary, this has little relevance to his Dictionary. It will be appropriate to

61 consider that Webster’s usual practice in his Dictionary was to introduce the spelling which had already been common among the Americans at his time, whether he might have been involved in the spelling or not, with a conservative attitude; this means that Webster can even be regarded as having tried to stop further changes in spelling, though admitting prevailing customs in the language.

3.3.4 Dictionaries in Demand among Americans during the Nineteenth Century After all, Webster’s Dictionary can hardly be regarded as a product of the atmosphere of anti-British sentiment. In what way, then, did his Dictionary have relevance to the history of America? In order to obtain an answer to this question, it is necessary to know what aspects of the Dictionary attracted the attention of the American people in the nineteenth century. Since most lexicographers have compiled their dictionaries responding to the demands of their times, the relations between Webster’s Dictionary and his time can be found through the investigation of how Americans were impressed by the nature of it. In this regard, the ‘dictionary-war’ which was waged between Webster and Joseph Worcester provides highly suggestive information. Worcester was a lexicographer who published the Comprehensive Pronouncing and Explanatory Dictionary of the English Language (1830), the Universal and Critical Dictionary of the English Language (1846) and the Dictionary of the English Language (1860) after Webster’s Dictionary. In rivalry with these dictionaries, Webster published a revised edition of his Dictionary in 1841. This edition was followed by the third, fourth and fifth editions in 1847, 1859 and 1864, respectively; the third and fourth editions were edited by Chauncey Goodrich, a successor of Webster’s, and the fifth by a lexicographer named Noah Porter. With regard to the details of the ‘war’, they have been expounded by Joseph Friend (1967:82-103), but Charlton Laird has told its atmosphere in brief: [...] when Worcester’s book invaded the market, the “war” was on, with editorials in newspapers, speeches, cartoons showing the dictionaries battling each other like pugilists, and a local passenger conductor who would call out, going to Worcester, Massachusetts, “Worcester! Worcester! All change from Webster.” (Laird 1972:289)

Eventually, Webster’s camp won the ‘war’. In revised editions of Webster’s Dictionary, quite a few encyclopaedic words, archaic words and pictorial materials were added one after another. However, these newly added features were not decisive factors for the victory of Webster’s camp. Rather, it was the original aspects of the Dictionary almost left untouched that drew people’s attention: information on English grammar and usage. Referring to the ‘war’, Allen Read (1979:4-13) introduced invaluable historical literature: the letters passed back and forth among publishing companies, book agents, teachers and professors in the Middle West between the 1840’s and 1860’s. These letters vividly show how Americans responded to the ‘war’, as well as reasons for the victory of Webster’s camp. The following are some passages from the letters which show the situation:

62 T. A. Nesmith in Michigan, agent of the Merriam Co. in Chicago (January 27, 1854): I feel a great interest that the North West which has taken such strides in the educational line should act as a unit in officially introducing the Dictionary [in Webster’s camp] into Schools, libraries & families of this section. It is an important object to be accomplished to have our whole American youth taught to write, spell and pronounce alike. Our Orthography should be uniform. Daniel Curry, President of Asbury University in Indiana (December 3, 1855): We accordingly so use it [a dictionary in Webster’s camp] in this institution, and desire to see it generally adopted in the schools of the country. Common Schools in Springfield (December 5, 1850): Such a work [a dictionary in Webster’s camp] does high honor to American literature, and deserves universal public favor. Thomas H. Benton, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction, in Iowa (February 28, 1849): I shall recommend it [a dictionary in Webster’s camp] in the instructions which I propose issuing early in the coming summer as a standard in the public schools of this state. James D. Eads, Superintendent of Public Instruction in Iowa (1856): We have adopted Webster’s Dictionaries in all our Public Schools in this state and I am making an effort to have a copy of Webster’s Unabridged placed upon the desk of every teacher in the state, by authority of the Legislature [...]. S. Hampstead, Governor of the state of Iowa (1854): It [a dictionary in Webster’s camp] is a work which is an honor to America and to every land where the English Language is spoken and as such should be made the standard for our Schools, Colleges and literary Institutions. To ensure uniformity and a complete knowledge of our language this work must be largely disseminated among the people, and for that purpose, no better mode could be devised than its introduction into our common school. Every school house should have a copy to which to refer by teacher and pupil.

The key phrases in these passages are “have our whole American youth taught to write, spell and pronounce alike” and “to ensure uniformity [...] of our language”. These phrases indicate that Americans at that time showed a keen interest in information on English grammar and usage. Besides, all of the 6 letters above recommended the use of the dictionaries in Webster’s camp at schools or home. This means that Webster’s Dictionary was closely related to the educational situation at that time.

3.3.5 The American Educational Situation in Its Early Period The American educational situation had relevance for Webster’s Dictionary not only in its information on English grammar and usage, but also in one other aspect. It is the abundance of biblical citations. In order to elucidate the point, reference to Ellwood Cubberley’s Readings in the History of Education (1920), a collection of historical documents on American education in its early period, is beneficial. Cubberley was an American educator and pioneer writer on the history of American education; he served as president of Vincennes University between 1891 and 1896 and as superintendent of schools in San

63 Diego, California between 1896 and 1898. In the following discussion, I will refer to the contents of Cubberley’s Readings as a basis, occasionally pointing out the historical facts which have been mentioned by three other authorities of American education, namely, Thomas Pyles, Winthrop Francis and Charlton Laird. Since the days well before American Independence, the people in America had attached special importance to language and religious education. Pyles (1954:65) has cited the fact that the Puritan church in America issued an order in 1647 requiring that every Massachusetts town of fifty or more householders should appoint an instructor to teach all children to read and write. This type of requirement became intensified as the number of immigrants increased. As to the situation at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Pyles has also pointed out the following fact: The need for an unwavering line setting off right from wrong was just as urgent in the sphere of language as in that of morals. It is little wonder, when one considers the social, moral, and economic background of the most influential of our earliest settlers, that the linguistic earnestness of the prescriptive grammarians should have met with such enthusiasm and sympathy on these shores. (Pyles 1954:66)

Between 1790 and 1815, educational facilities termed ‘reading schools’ by the educators at the time were established one after another in Boston. The purpose of the facilities indicates that Americans’ requirements for language and religious education became even more intensified. It is teaching reading, spelling, pronunciation, elocution and grammar to young boys and girls. These schools partially replaced Latin schools which had been established by then for high education. This is what William Fowle (Cubberley 1920:545), then a school teacher, wrote at that time; among educational historians, his writings have generally been regarded as excellent for knowledge about schools in Boston from the end of the eighteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth. It is significant that the same literature (Cubberley 1920:545) also shows that it was compulsory for every pupil at reading schools to read the Bible and study spelling and grammar with the textbooks written by none other than Webster. While language and religious education was being conducted in this way in Boston, an educational society was formed in New York at the beginning of the 1800’s. The name of the society indicates how the people at the time were concerned about religious education: the “Society for Establishing a Free School in the City of New York, for the Education of such Poor Children as do not Belong to, or are not Provided for, by any Religious Society”. This society appealed to the public to give full consideration to religious education; it was in 1805. In this appeal, the members of the society (Cubberley 1920:553), pointing out moral problems caused by immigrants, asserted that “it will be a primary object, without observing the peculiar forms of any religious Society, to inculcate the sublime truths of religion and morality contained in the Holy Scriptures”. In 1820, the schools of Providence in Rhode Island adopted a few regulations for educational methods: “The Regulations for the Instruction and Government of the Publick Schools in the Town of Providence”. A passage from the regulations clearly shows that they placed highest priority on language and religious education. It reads: The Instruction shall be uniform in the several schools, and shall consist of Spelling, Reading, the use of Capital letters and Punctuation, Writing, English Grammar & Arithmetick.

64 The Pronunciation shall be uniform in the several schools & the standard shall be the Critical Pronouncing Dictionary of John Walker. The following Books, and none others, shall be used in the several schools, viz: Alden’s Spelling Book, first & second part, New Testament, American Preceptor, Murray’s Sequel to the English Reader, Murray’s Abridgement of English Grammar and Dabol’s Arithmetick. (Cubberley 1920:548)

Incidentally, this passage also shows the spread of the grammars of Murray, Webster’s formidable antagonist in an argument on grammatical theories; a feud between Webster and Murray is expounded throughout Makoto Ikeda’s work (1999). As observed thus far, the early history of America was inextricably related to language and religious education. Richard Rollins (1980:124) has correctly remarked, “Like religion, language took on great importance in the early republic”. Webster lived at that time as a grammarian, writer of English textbooks and puritan versed in the Bible. In a sense, Webster was a person who perfectly met the demands of the time. In this regard, Pyles (1954:66) also expressed his feelings thus: “If Noah Webster had not been born, we should have had to invent him.” There is little wonder if his Dictionary is abundant in linguistic information and biblical citations as it actually is; Webster’s Dictionary can be called a mirror of the time in this respect. However, this does not mean that Webster was always a grammarian and a moralist halfand-half; he was not necessarily pious throughout the compilation of his Dictionary. Though quoting abundant biblical passages in his Dictionary, Webster still did not do this as enthusiastically as Johnson. Besides, in numerous cases, he supplied citations from the Bible to illustrate his view of English usage and grammar. From this viewpoint, Webster can be said to have made use of the atmosphere of religious education for the benefit of teaching English to the people in America. This point will be examined in detail in Section 4.5 and 5.1.3.

3.3.6 The Continuity of the American Lexicographic Tradition It may safely be said now that Webster compiled his Dictionary in the context of the educational situation in America. However, Webster’s was not the first dictionary that has close relevance to the situation. That is, there is historical continuity between Webster’s Dictionary and its preceding English dictionaries in America. I will discuss the matter below with the help of investigations by Joseph Friend, George Krapp and Martha Gibson. In a broad sense, the history of American lexicography began in the middle of the eighteenth century. Americans then used English dictionaries of British origin which conformed to their needs. In this situation, two dictionaries gained especially high popularity. One is William Johnston’s Pronouncing and Spelling Dictionary (1764). This dictionary contains material entitled “Catalogue of Words of Similar Sounds, but of Different Spelling and Significations”. According to Krapp (1925:vol. 2, 352), it was because of this material that the dictionary enjoyed such popularity. The other English dictionary is a revised edition of William Perry’s Royal Standard English Dictionary (1788). In a strict sense, this is not a dictionary of genuinely British origin, because the lexicographer who revised its original edition (1775) was Worcester, Webster’s enemy in

65 the ‘dictionary war’ whom I referred to earlier. What Worcester did to the original edition was adding encyclopaedic material which included the explanation of Scriptural proper names and the names of rivers and mountains. Worcester, however, did not forget to add material for the explanation of a system of pronunciation and English grammar. The popularity of Johnston’s Dictionary and Perry’s Dictionary revised by Worcester indicates how much Americans during the eighteenth century expected dictionaries to provide information on English spelling, pronunciation and grammar. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, another dictionary of English origin was revised by an American. It is Stephen Jones’s version of Thomas Sheridan’s General Pronouncing and Explanatory Dictionary of the English Language for the Use of Schools, Foreigners Learning English, whose title must have pleased immigrants who were in need of learning English. It was issued in 1806, the same year in which Webster’s Compendious Dictionary was published. In addition to the situation as discussed above, the year of 1798 is highly memorable in the history of American lexicography. In this year, the first English dictionary of American origin came to be published. It was a School Dictionary published by a lexicographer named Samuel Johnson, Jr. [Johnson Jr. hereafter], coincidentally the same name as ‘Dr. Johnson’ in England. This dictionary is hardly available today; Friend (1967:105) has pointed out that only two copies of it were extant as of 1967. It is, however, possible to obtain some knowledge about the dictionary through Gibson’s fairly detailed account. Then, according to Gibson (1936:286-287), Johnson Jr. listed approximate 4,000 words in his School Dictionary; they are, Gibson has said, types of words which are not obsolete nor very familiar. Gibson (1936:286-287) also quoted Johnson Jr.’s own statement concerning the purpose of the dictionary: “The design of it is to furnish schools with a dictionary which will enable youth more easily to acquire knowledge of the English language.” Krapp’s (1925:vol. 2, 356) account of the dictionary is that it was sold for a low price to be used at schools. Whether Gibson’s and Krapp’s observations may be exactly in accord or not with the facts of the dictionary, its title and purpose strongly suggest that the first English dictionary of American origin was in close contact with the context of language education at schools in the country. Thus, in respect of the inclusion of information on grammar and usage of the language, Webster’s Dictionary is an extension of the dictionaries in America from the middle of the eighteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth. His Dictionary, therefore, is not entirely a brand-new type in America.

3.3.7 Generalization of the Analysis The historical context of Webster’s Dictionary becomes fairly clear when it is compared with that of Johnson’s Dictionary. Both dictionaries have in common that they deal with English grammar and usage in detail. However, there are fundamental differences between the two in respect of their historical contexts. In the case of Johnson’s Dictionary, it was published in response to the requirement for fixing the language. This means that Johnson compiled his Dictionary almost exclusively for men of letters in England. As to Webster’s Dictionary, the situation is totally different. Webster compiled his Dictionary for people in general residing in America who wanted to improve their English proficiency. Such an intention of Webster’s is far from conceivable

66 about Johnson. Johnson’s own remarks prove it. One year after he published the Dictionary, Johnson (1756: n. pag. [1st (par. 2) in the “Preface”]) said, “it has been since considered that works of that kind [Johnson’s Dictionary] are by no means necessary to the greater number of readers”. Another difference between the two dictionaries is found from the viewpoint of the continuity of the lexicographical tradition. Johnson’s Dictionary is almost without precedent in terms of its purpose; few English lexicographrs before Johnson had attempted to compile a dictionary to fix the language. In contrast to this, Webster’s Dictionary has close relations with some of its preceding dictionaries in America; Webster is thought to have based himself on the tradition of American lexicography and the practice of trying to improve the English used by the American public. And Webster was almost indifferent to the deliberate establishment of an American style of English, after all. The situation being thus, it is natural to conclude that Johnson’s and Webster’s views of English grammar and usage as revealed in their dictionaries are essentially different from each other, and that the differences will be reflected in their use of verbal examples.

4:

Johnson's and Webster's Usual Practices in Supplying Verbal Examples

4.1

Johnson’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations

4.1.1 An Apparent Contradiction between Johnson’s Principles and Practice In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson mentioned his principles of the selection of sources of citations from a historical viewpoint: So far have I been from any care to grace my pages with modern decorations, that I have studiously endeavoured to collect examples and authorities from the writers before the restoration, whose works I regard as the wells of English undefiled, as the pure sources of genuine diction. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 61) in the “Preface”]) [...] as every language has a time of rudeness antecedent to perfection, as well as of false refinement and declension, I have been cautious lest my zeal for antiquity might drive me into times too remote, and croud my book with words now no longer understood. I have fixed Sidney’s work for the boundary, beyond which I make few excursions. From the authours which rose in the time of Elizabeth, a speech might be formed adequate to all the purposes of use and elegance. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 62) in the “Preface”])

These two passages indicate that Johnson had formulated the principles before he began to compile the Dictionary. If he had rigidly observed the principles during the compilation of the Dictionary, the major portion of his citations would have been comprised of phrases and sentences from the literature published between Sir Philip Sidney’s (b.1554-d.1586) time and the 1650’s. In fact, however, it appears that he was not necessarily faithful to the principles. In his Dictionary, Johnson provided 1,310 entries on words beginning with the letter L, which make up approximate 3.4% of the total number of entries in the Dictionary. Within the range of these 1,310 entries, he allocated 4,047 citations. The investigation of these citations seems to imply that the reality of Johnson’s practice of supplying citations does not accord with his principles stated in the “Preface”. The following table shows the results of the investigation; the figures here indicate the number of citations from relevant sources.

Table 1: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Shakespeare

640

Allestree

19

Dunciad

7

Calamy

2

Dryden

480

Glanville

18

Baker

7

Wycherley

1

68 Table 1: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary (continued) Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Bible

270

Davies

18

Sprat

6

Wake

1

Milton

165

Grew

17

Otway

6

Trevoux

1

Bacon

163

Thomson

15

Hubbard

6

Thompson

1

Addison

161

Raleigh

15

Harris

6

Tasser

1

Pope

156

Tillotson

14

Digby

6

“Song of the King and the Miller”

1

Locke

133

Fairfax

14

Derham

6

Smart

1

Spenser

130

Quincy

13

Creech

6

Skinner

1

Swift

114

King Charles

13

Cranshaw

6

Sea Dictionary

1

Arbuthnot

65

Howell

13

Cleaveland

6

Scotch Proverb

1

Prior

60

Cowley

13

Ainsworth

6

Savage

1

Hooker

58

Burnet

13

Sharp

5

Rymer

1

Sidney

57

Peacham

12

Hammond

5

Rawe

1

L’Estrange

53

Hill

12

Floyer

5

Oxford Reasons against the Covenant

1

South

48

Hayward

12

Ascham

5

Norris

1

Brown

42

Daniel

12

Suckling

4

Boyle

40

Tusser

11

Hakewill

4

Littleton

Atterbury

31

Sandy

11

Garth

4

Keil

1

Mortimer

29

Roscommon

11

Evelyn

4

Johnson

1

Denham

29

Newton

11

Broome

4

Introduction to Grammar

1

Miller

27

Camden

11

Whitgift

3

Herring

1

Clarendon

26

Rogers

10

Walton

3

Halifax

1

Philips

25

Holder

10

Southern

3

Guardian

1

Muschenbroek

1 1

Watts

24

Cheyne

10

Smalridge

3

Gosthead

1

Taylor

24

Carew

10

Herbert

3

Friend

1

Wiseman

23

Abbot

10

Gibson

3

Freeholder

1

Temple

23

Spectator

9

Dennis

3

Farquhar

1

Donne

23

Rowe

9

Congreve

3

Epitaph on Vanbrugh

1

69 Table 1: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary (continued) Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Wotton

22

Moxon

9

Common Prayer Book

3

Drayton

1

Knolles

22

Harvey

9

Child

3

Dorset

1

Hudibras

22

Hanmer

9

Calmet

3

Defoe

1

Collier

22

Hale

9

King

3

Davis

1

Woodward

21

Graunt

9

Tickel

2

Chapman

1

Waller

21

Granville

9

Tate

2

Brerewood

1

Ray

21

Wilkins

8

Smith

2

Bramhall

1

Dictionary

21

Tatler

8

Sanderson

2

Baynard

1

Bentley

21

Stillingfleet

8

May

2

Barker

1

Gay

20

More

8

Duppa

2

Bailey

1

Ben Johnson

20

Felton

8

Cowell

2

Baconholder

1

Ayliffe

20

Walsh

7

Clarissa

2

‘unspecified’

1

This analysis is based on a small portion of the whole of Johnson’s citations in his Dictionary, but its credibility becomes ensured when it is compared with other analyses of the same kind. That is, at least two authorities on Johnson’s Dictionary made statistical analyses of sources of his citations in the past. They are Lewis Freed and Allen Read. Freed’s analysis has not been published, but Theodore Stenberg has given a detailed account of it. According to Stenberg (1944:203), Freed analysed all sources of Johnson’s citations supplied in the first volume of his Dictionary. Stenberg (1944:203) has shown the figures Freed mentioned concerning all authors from whom Johnson quoted more than 500 times: “Shakespeare, 8694; Dryden, 5627; Milton, 2733; Bacon, 2483; Addison, 2439; Pope, 2108; Swift, 1761; Locke, 1674; Spenser, 1546; Hooker, 1216; South, 1092; Browne, 1070; Arbuthnot, 1029; Sidney, 762; Prior, 706; L’Estrange, 654; Boyle, 592; Watts, 509”. In addition to these figures, Stenberg (1944:203) has also confirmed Freed’s analysis about Johnson’s citations from the Bible: “Old Testament, 1448; New Testament, 508; Apocrypha, 267: a total of 2223”. As to Read’s analysis, he studied 10,000 citations beginning at entries on words for the letter M. Based on the results of this study, Read (1986b:37) has shown the percentages of the authors appearing frequently: “Shakespeare 17.2, Dryden 10.0, Bacon 4.6, Milton 4.5, the Bible4.5, Addison 3.8-4.3, Pope 3.1, Spenser 2.8, Swift 2.1, and Sidney 1.5”. When Freed’s analysis and Read’s are compared, they show little difference in indicating Johnson’s tendencies in his selection of sources. And the tendencies are also observable in my analysis. That is, each of the three analyses indicates that Johnson quoted from Shakespeare exceedingly frequently, and from Dryden in second-order frequency; then, the frequencies of quotation from John Milton, Francis Bacon, Addison, Pope, Edmund Spenser, Swift, Sidney and the Bible follow after them. There is a little difference among the three analyses concerning the citations from the Bible; my data show that Johnson

70 quoted from the Bible in third-order frequency, Freed’s in sixth-order frequency and Read’s in fifth-order frequency. Nevertheless, it is clear that Johnson frequently quoted from the Bible anyway. It can now be said that these similarities among the three analyses assure the safety of proceeding with the analysis further based on the tendencies revealed in Table 1. Then, according to the table, Johnson was apparently not true to the principles he himself stated in the “Preface”. In order to clarify the point in detail, it is helpful to refer to some misconceptions among authorities. It is common knowledge that Johnson wrote his “Preface” after he finalized the body of the Dictionary. For this reason, quite a few authorities have taken it for granted that Johnson almost always observed the principles throughout his engagement with the compilation of the Dictionary. In this regard, Kikuo Yamakawa (1971:288) has claimed that Johnson basically did not quote from Dryden (b.1631-d.1700), Swift (b.1667-d.1745) and Addison (b.1671-d.1719). Since Johnson said that he “studiously endeavoured to collect examples” from literature before the Restoration, it may be natural for Yamakawa to have formulated such an opinion. As a matter of fact, however, Johnson quoted from Dryden quite frequently as shown above. Furthermore, Table 1 shows that Johnson quoted from Swift in tenth-order frequency and from Addison in sixth-order frequency. In consequence, Johnson quoted from the three authors more frequently than some authors before the Restoration. Yamakawa’s misunderstanding concerns the lower limit of the period which Johnson mentioned in relation to his selection of sources of citations. In contrast to this, David Fleeman, a renowned Johnsonian, had an erroneous idea concerning the upper limit of the period. Fleeman did not accept Johnson’s statements on his principles as they are, but he (1984:45) made a mistake in claiming that “Johnson contributed little to philology, and he had not much access to early forms of English”; more specifically, he (1984:38) also claimed that “The books he [Johnson] used were limited to the period from Shakespeare to Johnson himself”. This conception should be corrected. As a matter of fact, Johnson quoted from Spenser (b.1552?-d.1599) in ninth-order frequency; Johnson quoted from him more frequently than many authors after Shakespeare (b.1564-d.1616). Furthermore, Johnson even quoted from Geoffrey Chaucer (b.1340?-d.1400?), though he did not perform this in the L’s. For instance, in the entries on quaint, rote and tackle, Johnson supplied following citations, respectively: As clerkes been full subtle and queint. Chaucer. Wele couthe he sing, and playen on a rote. Chaucer. The takil smote and in it went. Chaucer.

Other citations from Chaucer are observable in the entries on donjon, erke, grin, welkin, etc. This is a point Read (1986b:37) also referred to; pointing out the fact that “Here and there one can find references to Middle English writers [in Johnson’s Dictionary]”, Read clarified that “Chaucer appears under such words as dam, defend, drotchel, gourd, mucker, sneap, etc”. (The reason why Johnson quoted from such authors before Sidney, which is linguistically motivated for the purpose of indicating changes in the senses and usage of words, will be seen in Section 8.1.2, for instance, through his use of citations from Chaucer.) Lastly, Robert Burchfield (1985:85-86) has claimed that “The central body of his [Johnson’s] illustrative quotations was drawn from the greatest literary, philosophical, and

71 scientific works of the period from Sidney to the Restoration, that is from the 1580s to 1660.” This claim can be regarded as a mere paraphrase of Johnson’s statements in the “Preface” mentioned above. Thus, Burchfield had the same mistaken belief as Yamakawa’s and Fleeman’s.

4.1.2 Johnson’s Statements on His Selection of Entry-words The misconceptions about the sources of Johnson’s citations have been brought about not only by the two passages in the “Preface” which were mentioned in the previous subsection. There is another passage in the “Preface” which is liable to fortify the misconceptions. The passage runs as follows: If the language of theology were extracted from Hooker and the translation of the Bible; the terms of natural knowledge from Bacon, the phrases of policy, war, and navigation from Raleigh; the dialect of poetry and fiction from Spenser and Sidney, and the diction of common life from Shakespeare, few ideas would be lost to mankind, for want of English words, in which they might be expressed. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 62) in the “Preface”])

The perusal of this passage reveals that Johnson here substantially referred not to the selection of sources of citations but to the selection of entry-words; in this passage, he mentioned the ‘terms’ of natural knowledge, the ‘dialect’ of poetry and fiction, etc., which concern entry-words rather than citations. This passage is in no way a bibliography of Johnson’s citations. However, the six authors mentioned in it all published their works between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s. Their dates indicate it; Richard Hooker’s dates are from 1554 (?) to 1600, Bacon’s from 1561 to 1626, Sir Walter Raleigh’s from 1552 to 1618, etc. These authors all lived at the time of ‘the wells of English undefiled’, and Johnson said that he had endeavoured to collect verbal examples from literature at that time. For this reason, the passage has often been associated with Johnson’s selection of sources of citations. For instance, Tetsuro Hayashi, referring to the six authors, has given a commentary on the passage as follows: Needless to say, these authors are only a limited number of authorities which Johnson most frequently quoted in his Dictionary. However, they are apparently the most typical sources from which an abundance of most genuine, polite, elegant diction in the English language could have been drawn in his time. (Hayashi 1978:105)

The fact is that the six authors were not necessarily ‘typical sources’ for Johnson to quote from. Certainly, Johnson quoted frequently from Shakespeare and the Bible, which were mentioned in the passage from the “Preface”. At the same time, however, Johnson often quoted from Addison and Swift, authors following the Restoration, as already indicated. Additionally, Table 1 in Section 4.1.1 shows that Johnson did not quote so often from Raleigh, one of the six authors. The citations from Raleigh are far smaller in number than those from some other authors after the 1650’s. To be specific, within the range of the L’s, Johnson quoted 15 times from Raleigh, but 156 times from Pope (b.1688-d.1744), 65 from John Arbuthnot (b.1667-d.1735), 60 from Matthew Prior (b.1664-d.1721), 42 from Sir Thomas Browen (b.1663-d.1704), 25 from Ambrose Philips (b.1675?-d.1749), 24 from

72 Isaac Watts (b.1674-d.1748), 21 from John Woodward (b.1665-d.1728), 21 from Richard Bentley (b.1662-d.1724) and 20 from John Gay (b.1685-d.1732). Freed’s and Read’s analyses also do not indicate that Raleigh is a source of high frequency in Johnson’s citations.

4.1.3 A Solution to the Apparent Contradiction In this way, in his selection of sources of citations, Johnson’s practice apparently did not accord with his principles. For the purpose of collecting phrases and sentences to be supplied in his Dictionary, Johnson actually ranged over literature more extensively than generally thought. Gwin Kolb and Ruth Kolb were partially aware of this. When they pointed out the fact, the Kolbs (1972:67) emphatically remarked that “we should stress the patent fact that, his [Johnson’s] remark in the Preface notwithstanding, he did not always drink deep from ‘the wells of English undefiled’ ”. However, their emphasis was not sufficient. It is not accurate to think that Johnson ‘did not always’ quote from the authors between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s; rather, he supplied an abundance of citations from authors in and after the 1660’s. Edward McAdam and George Milne appear to have been prudent when they stated that: [Johnson] decided to begin with Sir Philip Sidney (about 1580) and to end just before his contemporaries. He modified this a little by using Chaucer occasionally, and a few of his own friends, as well as some of his own works [...]. (McAdam and Milne 1963:viii)

This claim shows that they interpreted the 1650’s as “just before” Johnson’s time. This interpretation, however, does not seem to be helpful to solve the problematic discrepancy between Johnson’s principles stated in the “Preface” and his practice. In this way, Johnson even seems to have disregarded his principles in the practice of supplying citations. Why, then, did he mention the period between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s in relation to his selection of sources of citations? To answer this question, the following statement by Noel Osselton is highly suggestive: Johnson’s own definition of the chronological limits [...] had to do especially with the literary function which the dictionary fulfilled. (Osselton 1995:7)

In this statement, it is suggested that the principles Johnson mentioned in the “Preface” have relevance to literary aspects of his citations. This suggestion is reasonable and appropriate. The reason is that the reconfirmation of relevant passages in the “Preface” reveals Johnson’s reference to the elegance of the language: “From the authours which rose in the time of Elizabeth, a speech might be formed adequate to all the purposes of use and elegance”. Suppose that Johnson formulated the principles mainly from his literary viewpoint, it becomes possible to resolve the apparent contradiction. That is, the reason why he actually quoted frequently from the authors before Sidney’s time and after the 1650’s can be regarded thus: Johnson did not cling to his literary preference in the practice of supplying citations.

73

4.2

Johnson’s Citations as Substitutes for Definitions

4.2.1 Some Typical Examples Gwin Kolb and Ruth Kolb (1972:64) have claimed that Johnson often supplied citations “as supplements to his own definitions”. This claim is partially justified. They tried to prove their claim as follows: We cite, for instance, the entry under argumentation in the Dictionary, which reads: “Reasoning; the act of reasoning”; and then immediately on the next line: “Argumentation is that operation of the mind, whereby we infer one proposition from two or more propositions premised. [...] Watts’s Logick.” (G. & R. Kolb 1972:64-65)

Actually, however, their claim is not sufficiently convincing. Johnson occasionally supplied citations in a more radical way than the Kolbs conceived. There are considerable number of entries and sub-entries in the Dictionary in which Johnson supplied citations as substitutes for definitions without commenting on entry-words in his words. Moreover, quite a few of these citations do not even include relevant entry-words in them. This is a point which the Kolbs apparently failed to notice. Examples are: J: LADY-MANTLE. n.s. The leaves are serrated, the cup of the flower is divided into eight segments, expanded in form of a star; the flowers are collected into bunches upon the tops of the stalks; each seed vessel generally contains two seeds. Miller. J: LAZULI. n.s. The ground of this stone is blue, veined and spotted with white, and a glistering or metallick yellow [...] and when rich, is found, upon trial, to yield about one-sixth of copper, with a very little silver. Woodward’s Metallick Fossils.

Additionally, Johnson sometimes supplied more than one citation in an entry or sub-entry to provide minute information on the relevant entry-word without giving any comments. One example is seen in the entry on leap-year: J: LEAP-YEAR. n.s. Leap-year or bissextile is every fourth year, and so called from its leaping a day more that year than in a common year [...]. To find the leap-year you have this rule: Divide by 4; what’s left shall be For leap-year 0; for past 1, 2, 3. Harris. That the sun consisteth of 365 days and almost six hours [...] and this is the occasion of the bissextile or leap-year. Brown’s Vulg. Err.

In this example, the second citation from Browne can be regarded as a supplement to the first one from John Harris. Other examples of the same structure can be fairly easily found. The entry on larboard reads:

74 J: LARBOARD. n.s. The left-hand side of a ship, when you stand with your face to the head. Harris. Or when Ulysses on the larboard shunn’d Charybdis, and by the other whirlpool steer’d. Milton. Tack to the larboard, and stand off to sea, Veer starboard sea and land. Dryden.

In this example, the first citation functions as a definition in which the entry-word larboard is not included. As to the second and third citations, they can be regarded as supplements to the first one. Likewise, the entry on leet reads: J: LEET. n.s. Leete, or leta, is otherwise called a law-day [...] these jurisdictions, one and other, be now abolished, and swallowed up in the county court. Cowell. Who has a breast so pure, But some uncleanly apprehensions Keep leets and law-days, and in sessions sit With meditations lawful. Shakespeare’s Othello. You would present her at the leet, Because she bought stone jugs, and no seal’d quarts. Shak.

In this example, the citation from John Cowell functions as the definition of leet, and citations from Shakespeare are supplied as supplements to it.

4.2.2 Johnson's Motivation behind Substituting Citations for Definitions From what sources and on what occasions did Johnson supply citations as substitutes for definitions? This is a point to which little attention has been paid until today, but it concerns one of the essential aspects of Johnson’s citations: the relations between citations and definitions. Except for citations which can be regarded as supplements, such as the second and third ones in the entries on leap-year, larboard and leet, Johnson replaced his definitions by citations in 75 entries within the range of the L’s in his Dictionary. These citations are taken from 16 sources in total. The following table shows the situation in detail; the figures indicate the number of citations from relevant sources.

Table 2: Sources of Citations Substituted for Definitions in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary Sources Addison Ainsworth

Freq. 1 4

Bailey Calmet Carew

1 1 1

Entry-words larch (n.s.) life-everlasting (---), limpet (n.s), limmer (n.s.), lourge (n.s.) lamentine (n.s.) locust (n.s.) lestercock (n.s)

75 Table 2: Sources of Citations Substituted for Definitions in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary (continued) Sources Cowell Hanmer

Freq. 2 6

Harris

5

Hill

7

Miller

17

Peacham Skinner Quincy Spenser Walton Woodward Dictionaries

1 1 2 2 1 1 22

Entry-words leet (n.s), legacy (n.s.) lavolta (n.s.), leash (n.s.), lech (v.a.), linstock (n.s.), loggats (n.s.), lush (adj.) larboard (n.s.), latches (n.s.), leap-year (n.s.), logarithms (n.s.), loxodromick (n.s.) labdanum (n.s.), lac (n.s.), lapis lazuli (---), lead (n.s.), lentisck (n.s.), litharge (n.s.), logwood (n.s.) lady-bedstraw (n.s.), lady-mantle (---), lady’s slipper (---), larkspur (n.s.), lavender (n.s.), leadwort (n.s.), leek (n.s.), lentil (n.s.), lettuce (n.s.), lily (n.s.), lily-hyacinth (n.s.), lily of the valley (n.s.), lionleaf (n.s.), locust-tree (n.s.), lote tree (n.s.), lovage (n.s.), loveapple (n.s.) lampblack (n.s.) loom (v.n.) leucophlegmatick (adj.), ligament (n.s.) lustless (adj.), lyeke (adj.) loach (n.s.) lazuli (n.s.) labefy (v.a.), labent (adj.), lamm (v.a.), largition (n.s.), larker (n.s.), larvated (adj.), lax (n.s.), lee (n.s.), lentitude (n.s.), lewis d’or (n.s.), libral (adj.) libration (n.s.), limitaneous (adj.), linchpin (n.s.), loof (n.s.), lucidity (n.s.), lucrifick (adj.), ludification (n.s.), lumbago (n.s.), lumination (n.s.), lusk (adj.), lymphated (adj.)

This table indicates two notable facts. One concerns the types of entry-words. When Johnson substituted his citations for definitions, he almost always did this in entries on technical terms, names of animals and plants, etc. In other words, most of the entries are on encyclopaedic words. Another fact concerns the types of sources. We confirmed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 that Johnson generally quoted from authors of literary works. However, in the 16 sources shown in the table, the names of the authors are hardly seen; he quoted merely one or two times from the authors. Instead, it is seen here that Johnson quoted frequently from such authors as Sir Thomas Hanmer, a politician, Harris, a lexicographer of an encyclopaedic dictionary, John Hill, a natural scientist, and Philip Miller, a botanist. Besides, this table indicates that Johnson extracted 22 sentences or phrases from other dictionaries. Concerning Johnson’s practice of supplying citations, David Micklethwait, basically an authority on Webster’s Dictionary, has recognized that Johnson’s citations can be divided into two types: Johnson generally gave single names to identify his authorities, but those names were of two quite different types. Some were the authority for definitions that had been copied from other reference books, such as Harris (the Lexicon Technicum), Cowell (a law dictionary), Miller (gardening) or

76 Quincy (medical). The abbreviation Dict generally meant Bailey. The other names were authorities for usage, being the authors of his quotations. (Micklethwait 2000:178)

This statement can be regarded as correct in principle. When Johnson substituted citations for definitions, he usually did this from an encyclopaedic viewpoint irrelevantly to English literature and English usage.

4.3

Webster’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations

4.3.1 A Problem of Widely Accepted Opinions It has generally been thought that Webster was hardly aware of the importance of citations in English dictionaries. Allen Read (1986b:41) has claimed that “the giving of quotations was a minor part of his work [Webster’s Dictionary]”. In the same way, Daisuke Nagashima (1974:109) has said that Webster almost totally disregarded the value of citations in dictionaries. Both of them expressed their opinions based on the following statement by Webster: One half of the whole bulk of Johnson’s Dictionary is composed of quotations equally useless. One half of all the money that has been paid for the book, and which, in fifty years, must have been a very great amount, has been taken from the purchasers for what is entirely useless. (Boulton 1971:136)

Joseph Friend (1967:42) has also remarked that “Obviously Webster looked upon quotations as [...] inessential”. This opinion is based on Webster’s own words quoted below: One of the most objectionable parts of Johnson’s Dictionary, in my opinion, is the great number of passages cited from authors, to exemplify his definitions. Most English words are so familiarly and perfectly understood, and the sense of them so little liable to be called in question, that they may be safely left to rest on the authority of the lexicographer, without examples. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])

Such opinions as Read’s, Nagashima’s and Friend’s have been widely accepted. These opinions can apparently be justified by the fact that the number of citations in Webster’s Dictionary is approximate one sixth of that in Johnson’s. However, a close analysis of Webster’s selection of sources of citations proves that the opinions are not in accord with the facts.

4.3.2 Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations The following table shows the details of Webster’s selection of sources of citations in the L’s in his Dictionary; the figures here indicate the number of citations from relevant sources.

77

Table 3: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Webster’s Dictionary Sources Bible

Freq. 182

Sources Gray

Freq. 3

Sources

Freq.

Walsh

1

Sources Feltham

Freq. 1

Dryden

73

Glanville

3

Tusser

1

Ellicott

1

Shakespeare

50

Gay

3

Tooke

1

Dunciad

1

Pope

46

Felton

3

Thomson

1

Drayton

1

Milton

31

Denham

3

Tatler

1

Digby

1

Addison

21

Collier

3

Stick

1

Dict. Trev

1

Locke

12

Clarendon

3

Shaw

1

Davies

1

Swift

10

Arbuthnot

3

Rowe

1

Cranch. Rep

1

Bacon

10

Woodward

2

Roscommon

1

Coxe

1

Spenser

9

Tillotson

2

Ray

1

Cowley

1

Prior

9

Sprat

2

Ramsay

1

Com. Rev.

1

L’Estrange

7

Sandys

2

Plato

1

Clifton

1

Spectator

6

Mason

2

Philips

1

Cleaveland

1

Watts

5

Johnson

2

Paus.

1

Child

1

Rambler

5

Hamilton

2

Parsons

1

Charles

1

Hooker

5

Grew

2

Parnell

1

Camden

1

Taylor

4

Fairfax

2

Parker

1

Byron

1

South

4

Donne

2

Paley

1

Butler

1

Sidney

4

Cheyne

2

Otway

1

Buckminster

1

Encyclopedia

4

Burke

2

Newton

1

Blackmore

1

Atterbury

4

Broome

2

Littleton

1

Barker

1

Wotton

3

Blackstone

2

Kent

1

Asiat. Res.

1

Washington

3

Bentley

2

Irving

1

Ames

1

Waller

3

Ayliffe

2

Ibm

1

Adage

1

Temple

3

Franklin

2

Hubberd

1

‘unspecified’

2

Rogers

3

Wiseman

1

Hedge

1

-----

---

Mortimer

3

Whitgifte

1

Wister

1

-----

---

From an overall viewpoint, this table reflects two notable facts: Webster’s careful selection of citations and his favourite style of English. Firstly, concerning his careful selection of citations, the total number of citations indicated in the table becomes 632. This signifies that he supplied quite a small number of citations when compared with Johnson. Webster provided 2,024 entries in the L’s in his Dictionary. Therefore, he allocated 0.3 citations per entry there. As analysed in Section

78 4.1.1, Johnson allocated 4,047 citations in the L’s which is composed of 1,310 entries; that is, Johnson allocated 3.0 citations per entry within this range. However, this does not mean that Webster was indifferent to the value of citations. This becomes clear when we focus our attention on his approach to selecting the sources of his citations. Table 3 also indicates that Webster quoted from approximate 100 sources; these are assumed to have been enough for Webster to supply a larger number of citations than he did. Actually, however, he quoted only one or two times each from most of these sources, which is thought to be a trace of Webster’s careful selection of citations. This signifies that Webster was critical not about citations themselves, but about their ‘excessive’ number. He stated: In most cases, one example is sufficient to illustrate the meaning of a word; and this is not absolutely necessary, except in cases where the signification is a deviation from the plain literal sense, a particular application of the term; or in a case, where the sense of the word may be doubtful, and of questionable authority. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”]) In a few cases, where the sense of a word is disputed, I have departed from the general plan, and cited a number of authorities. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])

Secondly, as to the reflection of Webster’s favourite style of English, it requires some explanation. Against Webster’s usual practice to quote only one or two times from one source, there are some sources from which Webster quoted frequently. Especially, he quoted ten times or more from the Bible, Dryden, Shakespeare, Pope, Milton, Addison, John Locke, Swift and Bacon; from the Bible, he quoted as many as 182 times. As a matter of fact, these nine sources are almost identical with the top nine from which Johnson frequently quoted in his Dictionary. That is, Johnson quoted especially frequently from Shakespeare, Dryden, the Bible, Milton, Bacon, Addison, Pope, Locke and Spenser in this order in the L’s in his Dictionary. This is not a coincidence. One reason for this phenomenon is that Webster made use of Johnson’s citations. In the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, Webster stated: In general, I have illustrated the significations of words, and proved them to be legitimate, by a short passage from some respectable authors, often abridged from the whole passage cited by Johnson. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])

In this situation, it is natural that Johnson’s practice of supplying citations was reflected in Webster’s. There is, however, another reason for Webster’s selection of the nine sources. Apart from the three sources of the Bible, Shakespeare and Bacon, another six sources of high frequency in Webster’s Dictionary are taken from the literature between the beginning of the Restoration and Johnson’s time. This literature reflects the language to which Webster attached special importance. He stated: The language of Addison, Johnson, and other distinguished writers of the last century, in the use of the indicative, is therefore, more correct than the language of the writers in the age of Elizabeth; and their practice is principally the common usage of our country at this day. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”])

79 There is, among some poets of the present day, an affectation of reviving the use of obsolete words. Some of these may perhaps be revived to advantage; but when this practice proceeds so far as to make a glossary necessary to the understanding of a poem, it seems to be a violation of good taste. How different is the simple elegance of Dryden, Pope, Gray, Goldsmith and Cowper! (Webster 1828: n. pag. [46th in the “Introduction”])

In these statements, Webster’s favourite style of English is clearly revealed. At the stage of 1807, Webster harshly criticized Johnson, referring to Johnson’s selection of sources of citations: Among the authors cited in support of his definitions, there are indeed the names of Tillotson, Newton, Locke, Milton, Dryden, Addison, Swift, and Pope; but no small portion of words in his vocabulary, are selected from writers of the 17th century, who, though well versed in the learned languages, had neither taste nor a correct knowledge of English. (Boulton 1971:129)

This passage signifies two facts. Firstly, Webster’s favourite style of English had basically been consistent from 1807 to 1828; the passage in 1807 shows that he approved of Locke, Milton, etc., the authors from whom he frequently quoted in his Dictionary. Secondly, at the stage of 1807 Webster misunderstood Johnson’s selection of sources of citations. That is, he referred to Johnson’s inclusion of citations from the literature in the 17th century. This implies that up to 1807 Webster had read and miscomprehended Johnson’s statements in the “Preface” to his Dictionary to the effect that Johnson endeavoured to collect verbal examples from the literature between Sidney’s time to the 1650’s. With the exception of Dryden and a few other authors, the language of authors before and in the 17th century was basically unpleasant for Webster. According to James Boulton (1971:130), Webster said in 1807 that “Indeed some writers of age and judgement are led by Johnson’s authority to the use of words which are not English, and which give their style an air of pedantry and obscurity; and not infrequently, to the use of words which do not belong to the language”. Webster was originally critical about Johnson, and his condemnation of Johnson lasted until 1828. In the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, Webster (1828: n. pag. [45th]) criticized Johnson’s Dictionary in detail beginning with the phrase “the principal faults in Johnson’s Dictionary are [...]”. In this criticism, however, Webster did not mention Johnson’s selection of sources of citations. He is thought to have noticed sometime after 1807 that Johnson actually had not quoted so frequently from authors before the Restoration. Concerning Webster’s frequent quotation from Shakespeare and Bacon, the authors in the latter half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th, it is regarded as the reflections of Johnson’s tendency in supplying citations. There is, however, a slight difference between Johnson’s treatment of the two authors and Webster’s. That is, Johnson quoted from Shakespeare in first-order frequency, and from Bacon in fifth-order frequency. Webster, on the other hand, quoted from Shakespeare in third-order frequency, and from Bacon in ninthorder frequency, showing that he did not quote from the authors so frequently as Johnson did.

80 4.3.3 Citations from American Authors A false perspective has been repeated to date that Webster supplied abundant citations from American authors. In conjunction with this, I have to quote the same passage from the “Preface” to Webster’s Dictionary which I referred to in Section 3.3.2. The passage is as follows: I do not indeed expect to add celebrity to the names of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull, Hamilton, Belknap, Ames, Mason, Kent, Hare, Silliman, Cleaveland, Walsh, Irving, and many other Americans distinguished by their writings or by their science; but it is with pride and satisfaction, that I can place them, as authorities, on the same page with those of Boyle, Hooker, Milton, Dryden, Addison, Ray, Milner, Cowper, Davy, Thomson and Jameson. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [2nd (par. 13) in the “Preface”])

Referring to this passage, George Krapp has claimed: With pride and satisfaction Webster places Franklin, Washington, Adams [...]. The satisfaction seems somewhat irrelevant and puerile. In a dictionary it is of no great importance whether quotations illustrating the meaning of a word are taken from one reputable author or another. (Krapp 1925:vol. 2, 369)

Krapp’s criticism here is manifestly based on his assumption that Webster supplied an abundance of citations from American authors in his Dictionary. Joseph Friend (1967:36) is in line with Krapp in saying that Webster’s intention of listing Americanisms is “manifested chiefly by the use of illustrative quotations from American [...] writers”. Thomas Pyles (1954:93) has also claimed that “In the American Dictionary Webster took pride in his use of illustrative quotations from the works of American writers.” And Albert Baugh (2002:369) has believed that a significant feature of Webster’s Dictionary lay in a considerable number of “quotations from American authors”. All these four authorities have expressed their opinions based on Webster’s statement above. However, as Table 3 in Section 4.3.2 indicates, Webster seldom quoted from the American authors he mentioned in the passage; the table shows that he merely quoted once each from Michael Walsh, David Ramsay, James/Joseph Kent, Washington Irving and Moses/Parker Cleaveland, and two times each from George Mason, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin. Thus, citations from American authors in Webster’s Dictionary are quite rare, and far smaller in number than those from English authors such as Dryden, Pope, Milton, Addison, etc. Joseph Reed is one of a few authorities who have been aware of the fact. With the recognition that there is a discrepancy between Webster’s statement and his practice in quoting from American authors, Reed has remarked as follows: [Webster] had stated a distinct purpose: to draw attention to ‘American authorities’ and scientists (‘Franklin, Washington, Adams [...]’). In spite of this intention, more than half of the illustrations he added to Johnson (at least in the L’s) came from the Bible [...]. (Reed 1962:104)

In this statement of Reed’s, however, another type of misunderstanding is found. Actually, Webster did not say that he preferred to quote from American authors. He only said, “I can place them [the names of American authors], as authorities”. The pronoun “them” in the

81 passage is related to the names of American authors, and the words citations and quote and their synonyms are not included in the passage from the “Preface”. In other words, the passage only means that Webster put down the names of American authors, and nothing more than that. In this sense, Webster can be regarded as having done what he said in the passage. Examples are: W: LAIRD, n. In the Scots dialect, a lord; the proprietor of a manor. Cleaveland. W: LAZULITE, n. A mineral of a light, indigo blue color, occurring in small masses, or crystalized in oblique foursided prisms. Cleaveland.

As these examples show, Webster sometimes indicated the names of American authors next to his definitions without supplying any citations from them. David Micklethwait (2000:175) recognized this practice of Webster’s when he said, “Occasionally he [Webster] put in the names of American writers, and now and then an American quotation”. It is a pity that Micklethwait did not associate the practice to the related passage in the “Preface” to Webster’s Dictionary. I will not go into detail about this, for it has little relevance to citations. It is sufficient here to show that Webster hardly quoted from American authors. However, it is not unique to Webster to have indicated the names of authors without quoting from them. There was Webster’s predecessor in this practice. It was none other than Johnson. In the abridged edition of his Dictionary, Johnson usually indicated the names of authors as follows without quoting a phrase or a sentence from them: J: To ABASE. v.a. To cast down, to depress, to bring low. Sidney. J: To ABASH. v.a. To make ashamed. Milton.

Consequently, Webster seldom supplied citations from American authors in his Dictionary. For him, the ideal style of English was basically found in the works of English authors in and after 1660. Referring to the textbooks Webster published before the compilation of his Dictionary, Tom McArthur (1986:100) claimed “He [Webster] went on to produce a grammar and a reader, and for purposes of citation and exemplification drew upon American rather than British texts”. Whether this claim may be justified or not, the fact is that such an attitude of Webster’s is rarely observable in his Dictionary.

4.4

Webster’s Invented Verbal Examples

Webster, quite differently from Johnson, very frequently supplied his invented examples in his Dictionary. These verbal examples are often preceded by the conjunction as, and given next to definitions. They are actually large in number. For instance, there are 13 instances of them on a single page beginning with the entry on lapped and ending with that on

82 lark’s-heel; I estimate that there are approximate 2,000 instances of them in the L’s in his Dictionary. The primary purpose of these verbal examples clearly lay in illustrating the usage of entry-words. This becomes clear from the following examples in the first four subentries on large: W: LARGE, a. 1-4 1. Big; of great size; bulky; as a large body; a large horse or ox; a large mountain; a large tree; a large ship. 2. Wide; extensive; as a large field or plain; a large extent of territory. 3. Extensive or populous; containing many inhabitants; as a large city or town. 4. Abundant; plentiful; ample; as a large supply of provisions.

At the same time, these invented phrases vividly show that Webster was well aware of the necessity of verbal examples for the purpose of illustrating the usage of words. Webster invented not only phrases but also sentences. Examples are: W: LAND, n. 3. Any small portion of the superficial part of the earth or ground. We speak of the quantity of land in a manor. Five hundred acres of land is a large farm. W: LATE, a. 5. Not long past; happening not long ago; recent; as the late rains. We have received late intelligence. W: LATELY, adv. Not long ago; recently. We called on a gentleman who has lately arrived from Italy.

Among these examples, the one in ‘LATE, a. 5.’ indicates that invented sentences are occasionally accompanied by invented phrases. The following example indicates that Webster from time to time supplied his invented sentences to illustrate the figurative meanings of words; in order to support his invented example, Webster supplied a citation here: W: LAMP, n. 2. Figuratively, a light of any kind. The moon is called the lamp of heaven. Thy gentle eyes send forth a quickening spirit, To feed the dying lamp of life within me. Rowe.

This example partially contradicts widely accepted opinions about Webster’s lexicographic practice. Joseph Friend, for instance, has claimed that: Johnson prefers to rely on the illustrative quotations, for the most part literary, with which his definitions are generously provided, to carry much of the burden; he does not always trouble himself to spell out an obvious figurative extension of meaning. Webster, on the other hand, is concerned to make explicit every semantic discrimination he perceives. He does not depend so heavily on his less ample quotations [...]. (Friend 1967:41-42)

The example above signifies that this is not always the case.

83 Though not so often, Webster supplied invented phrases and sentences to illustrate his comments on the usage of words as shown below: W: LIABLE, a. 2. Subject; obnoxious; exposed. Proudly secure, yet liable to fall. Milton. Liable, in this sense, is always applied to evils. We never say, a man is liable to happiness or prosperity, but he is liable to disease, calamities, censure; he is liable to err, to sin, to fall. W: LAPSE, n. 3. A slip; an error; a fault; a failing in duty; a slight deviation from truth or rectitude. This Scripture may be usefully applied as a caution to guard against those lapses and failings to which our infirmities daily expose us. Rogers. So we say, a lapse in style or propriety.

In this way, Webster often supplied his invented phrases and sentences to illustrate the usage of words, sometimes making use of citations. About this practice, Webster himself stated that: In many cases, I have given brief sentences of my own; using the phrases or sentences in which the word most frequently occurs [...]. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])

Webster’s practice of supplying invented phrases and sentences reveals an aspect of his view of verbal examples. That is, he was concerned with verbal examples contributing to the use of the language. This can be regarded as highly scientific, and is partially in line with the principles of modern English dictionaries, especially learners’ dictionaries. Though he did not supply so many citations as Johnson did, Webster was never indifferent to verbal examples.

4.5

Biblical Citations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

4.5.1 A Problem with the Perspectives to Date Both Johnson and Webster supplied abundant biblical citations in their dictionaries. This has often been referred to among authorities on their dictionaries from the viewpoint of their morality. For instance, William Wimsatt (1959:80), an authority on Johnson’s Dictionary, has claimed that “the Dictionary [of Johnson’s] is fortified [...] by morality and religion - by passages from the whole range of the Old and New Testaments”. David Micklethwait (2000:186), an authority on Webster’s Dictionary, has remarked that “Christianity is to be found in the dictionary [of Webster's] [...] in quotations from the Bible”. In contrast to this tendency, it has been quite rare that their biblical citations are analysed from the viewpoint of lexicographic technique. It has been widely acknowledged that Johnson and Webster were pious Christians, respectively. Therefore, it may be natural that their biblical citations have been regarded as reflections of their morality. However, there is no denying that associating these citations exclusively with their morality has

84 obscured the language facts in the two dictionaries. This can be said especially about Webster’s Dictionary. As a matter of fact, Webster supplied most of his biblical citations induced not by his morality but by his preference to indicate the usage of entry-words in his Dictionary. This becomes clear when Webster’s biblical citations are compared with Johnson’s.

4.5.2 An Overview of Webster’s Practice of Supplying Biblical Citations Joseph Reed (1962:104), referring to an abundance of biblical citations in Webster’s Dictionary, has claimed that “Johnson had quoted liberally from the Bible, but apparently not nearly often enough to please Webster”. This is a claim which summarizes Reed’s recognition that Webster’s Dictionary is full of morality. His claim is apparently reasonable. It is widely known that Webster’s major source of citations is the Bible. Herbert Morton, for instance, has said: [Webster] seldom thought it necessary to include illustrative quotations. When he did so from time to time, he liked to draw on the Bible [...]. (Morton 1994:43)

Besides, it was analysed in Section 4.3.2 that Webster quoted from the Bible in first-order frequency in the L’s in his Dictionary, while Johnson quoted from the same source in thirdorder frequency within the corresponding range of his Dictionary; when the total number of citations is taken into account, Webster’s biblical citations account for 28.8% of all citations within the range and Johnson’s 6.7%, respectively. In spite of this situation, however, Reed’s claim is essentially erroneous. Actually, Webster had not quoted from the Bible as often as Reed thought. When Table 1 in Section 4.1.1 and Table 3 in Section 4.3.2 are collated, it becomes revealed that Webster quoted 182 times from the Bible and Johnson 270 times within the respective ranges of the L’s in their dictionaries. And when the number of entries is taken into account, Webster allocated biblical citations 0.08 times per entry, and Johnson 0.21. Thus, the fact is that Webster quoted from the Bible far less often than Johnson. Reed’s misleading claim can be regarded as the result of his excessive emphasis on Webster’s morality. However, this fact means neither that Webster was simply reserved in quoting from the Bible, nor that he almost always copied biblical citations from Johnson’s Dictionary. The analysis of the 182 biblical citations in Webster’s Dictionary reveals that he borrowed only 71 of them from Johnson’s Dictionary. In other words, Webster excluded 199 biblical citations in Johnson’s Dictionary and selected 111 anew by himself, signifying his unique practice in quoting from the Bible. In the following sub-sections, I will analyse Webster’s biblical citations from four angles: those he excluded from Johnson’s; those he added to Johnson’s; those he substituted for Johnson’s; and those he borrowed from Johnson’s. In these analyses, I also hope to clarify Johnson’s practice in supplying biblical citations at the same time.

85 4.5.3 Webster’s Exclusion of Johnson’s Biblical Citations Webster supplied biblical citations in 92 entries and Johnson in 127 within the respective ranges of the L’s in their dictionaries. The table below shows in what types of entries the two lexicographers supplied the citations. The figures here indicate the number of biblical citations; the letters J and W indicate Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s, respectively; and the spellings of entry-words and the abbreviations of parts of speech are based on Webster’s except for the case where there are entries in which only Johnson supplied biblical citations. Table 4: Biblical Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries Entry-words labor, n. labor, v.i. labor, v.t. lack, v.t. lack, v.i. lack, n. lade, v.t. laid, pret./ pp. lain, pp. Lamb, n. Lament, v.i. Lamentation, n. Lance, n. Land, n. Landmark, n. Languish, v.i. lap, v.i. Lapful, n. Large, a. Lasciviousness, n. last, n. last, a.

J 1 5 1 1 3 --1 1

W 1 4 --1 2 1 1 ---

Entry-words leaved, a. leaven, n. leaven, v.t. led, pret./ pp. legion, n. lend, v.t. lender, n. lengthen, v.t.

J 1 1 1 2 --1 --1

W --1 1 --1 --1 ---

Entry-words lintel, n. list, v.i. listen, v.i. little, a. little, a. little, adv. live, v.i. live, a.

J 1 --1 3 2 1 4 1

W --1 --1 ----5 ---

1 --3 1

--1 1 1

lentil, n. leper, n. leprosy, n. leprous, n.

1 1 1 ---

------1

living, n. living, n. lo, exclam. load, v.t.

1 ----1

1 2 2 ---

1 ----2 --1 2 ---

--1 1 3 1 ----1

less, a. less, n. lesser, a. lesson, n. lest, con. let, v.t. letter, n. leviathan, n.

1 2 --1 1 11 2 1

2 --1 1 2 3 -----

loathe, v.t. locust, n. lodge, v.i. loftily, adv. lofty, a. log, n. long, a. long, adv.

1 1 2 1 --1 10 5

------1 1 --1 3

1 ---

--1

levy, v.t. liberally, adv.

1 1

--1

1 1

3 1

Latchet, n.

1

---

license, n.

2

---

---

1

Lately, adv. Lattice, n. Laugh, v.t. Laughter, n.

1 1 1 ---

--1 1 1

1 2 11 1

2 1 3 ---

9 1 1 9

7 ----9

Launch, v.i.

1

---

lick, v.t. lie, v.i. lie, v.i. lien, participle. lier, n.

long, v.i. longsuffering, a. longsuffering, n. look, v.i. look, v.t. look, n.s. loose, v.t.

1

---

loose, v.i.

1

1

86 Table 4: Biblical Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries (continued) Entry-words law, n. Lawful, a. lay, pret. lay, v.t. lay, v.i. lead, v.t. lead, v.t. lead, v.i. Leader, n.

J --1 1 30 1 1 6 1 1

W 4 --1 12 1 --2 1 ---

J 1 5 1 3 3 3 1 1 1

W 6 4 --11 1 3 --2 1

Entry-words loose, a. lord, n. lordship, n. lose, v.t. loss, n. lot, n. lothe, v.t. loud, a. love, v.t.

J 3 --1 2 1 1 --1 2

W --1 1 2 --2 2 1 1

----1 ---

Entry-words life, n. lift, v.t. lifter, n. light, n. light, a. light, v.i. lighten, v.i. lighten, v.t. light-minded, a. lignaloes, n. ligure, n. like, a. like, adv.

leaf, n. League, n. lean, v.i. lean, a.

1 2 1 1

1 1 2 2

----5 3

5 1 1 1

1 1 --1

--4 2 1 1 1 1 ---

1 1 1 1 --1 --1

like, v.t. like, v.i. liken, v.t. likewise, adv. liking, a. liking, n. limit, n. limit, v.t.

1 1 --1 1 1 1 1

----1 1 --1 --1

1 1 1 --1 --1 1

------1 2 1 1 ---

8 2

4 1

lineage, n. linger, v.i.

1 ---

--1

love, n. lovely, a. loving, ppr. lovingkindnes, n. louse, n. low, a. low, v.i. lowliness, n. lowly, a. lucre, n. lurk, v.i. lurkingplace, n. lust, n. lying, ppr.

leanness, n. leap, v.i. learn, v.t. learn, v.i. leasing, n. least, a. leather, n. leave, n. leave, v.t. leave, v.i.

2 1

1 ---

This table shows that Johnson supplied his biblical citations in a wide variety of entries. The entries are sometimes on words of daily use, and sometimes on encyclopaedic words such as technical terms and the names of animals and plants. In contrast to this, Webster selected a relatively small number of entries in which biblical citations should be supplied. He excluded Johnson’s biblical citations in 61 entries. A large proportion of the 61 entries are divided into three types: entries on encyclopaedic words, those on inflected forms of verbs and those treating obsolete usage of words. I will discuss the three types below in this order. (1) Webster’s Exclusion of Biblical Citations Supplied in Entries on Encyclopaedic Words in Johnson’s Dictionary Johnson supplied biblical citations in entries on encyclopaedic words such as lance, latchet, leather, lentil, letter, leviathan, lignaloes, ligure, lintel, locust, louse, lurking-place, etc. Webster disregarded most of the biblical citations there. Some of the entry-words are closely related to Christianity. Johnson quoted from the Biblefor the words as follows:

87 J: LATCHET. n.s. The string that fastens the shoe. There cometh one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. Mark i. 7. J: LIGURE, n.s. A precious stone. The third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. Exod. J: LEVIATHAN. n.s. A water animal mentioned in the book of Job. By some imagined the crocodile, but in poetry generally taken for the whale. Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? Job.

Even in these entries, Webster supplied no biblical citation; he only indicated the sources for reference: W: LATCHET, n. The string that fastens a shoe. Mark i. W: LIGURE, n. A kind of precious stone. Ex. xxviii. W: LEVIATHAN, n. An aquatic animal, described in the book of Job, ch. xli, and mentioned in other passages of Scripture. In Isaiah, it is called the crooked serpent. It is not agreed what animal is intended by the writers, whether the crocodile, the whale, or a species of serpent.

Since the situation is thus, Webster’s Dictionary can hardly be expected to function as a scriptural glossary as compared to Johnson’s. (2) Webster’s Exclusion of Biblical Citations Supplied in Entries on Inflected Forms of Verbs in Johnson’s Dictionary Webster basically disregarded Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on inflected forms of verbs, specifically, the entries on laid, lain, led, lien, loving and lying. The following examples show how Johnson treated this type of word:

J: LAID.Preterite participle of lay. [No definition is given in this entry. K.M.] Money laid up for the relief of widows and fatherless children. 2 Mac. iii. 10. J: LAIN.Preterite participle of lye. [No definition is given in this entry. K.M.] Mary seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. John xx. 12.

Webster did not indicate even the sources of biblical passages as follows:

88 W: LAID, pret. and pp. of lay; so written for layed. W: LAIN, pp. of lie. Lien would be a more regular orthography, but lain is generally used.

(3) Webster’s Exclusion of Biblical Citations Supplied in Entries for the Treatment of Obsolete Usage of Words When Webster thought that Johnson supplied biblical citations to illustrate obsolete usage of words, he generally excluded them. For instance, Johnson quoted from the Bible in the entry on leasing in this way: J: LEASING. n.s. Lies; falsehood. O ye sons of men, how long will ye have such pleasure in vanity, and seek after leasing? Psal. iv. 2.

Webster changed the contents of this entry as follows: W: LEASING, n.s as z. Falsehood; lies. [Obsolete or nearly so.]

Webster’s reluctance to illustrate such obsolete usage by means of biblical citations can be more clearly observed in the following example. Here, he borrowed Johnson’s citation from Bacon and disregarded a citation from the Bible: J: LIKE. v.a. 3. To please; to be agreeable to. Now disused. This desire being recommended to her majesty, it liked her to include the same within one entire lease. Bacon He shall dwell where it liketh him best. Deut. xxiii. 16. ---------W: LIKE, v.t. 2. To please; to be agreeable to. This desire being recommended to her majesty, it liked her to include the same within one entire lease. Obs. Bacon.

The following examples concern both inflected forms of verbs and obsolete usage of words: J: LIEN. the participle of lie. [No definition is given in this entry. K.M.] One of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife. Gen. xxvi. 10. ---------W: LIEN, the obsolete participle of lie. [No definition is given in this entry. K.M.]

89 Without appreciating the noticeable tendencies in Webster's selection of biblical citations as revealed in Table 4 beforehand, his unique practice as above, which will be regarded as exemplifying the tendencies, may be passed over or thought to be a reflection of his state of mind when writing the entries. I have thus far analysed Webster’s practice in his exclusion of Johnson’s biblical citations. It may safely be said that Webster usually thought it unnecessary to quote from the Bible for words which needed little instruction in terms of grammar and usage at his time. Incidentally, Webster did not exclude Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on infinitives of verbs, which is also reflected in Table 4.

4.5.4 Webster’s Addition of Biblical Citations Though supplying a far smaller number of biblical citations than Johnson, Webster quoted 111 phrases and sentences from the Bible which are not seen in the entries within the range of the L’s in Johnson’s Dictionary. Table 4 in the preceding sub-section partially reflects the situation; Webster selected entries anew to supply 26 biblical citations of his choice. However, the situation of the remaining 85 citations cannot be inferred from the table. Because of this reason, it is necessary to produce another type of table which shows how Webster quoted directly from the Bible without referring to Johnson’s Dictionary. In the following Table, the letter ‘N’, which stands for ‘new’, indicates the number of biblical citations Webster uniquely supplied in the respective entries.

Table 5: Biblical Citations from the Original Source in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Webster's Dictionary Entry-words labor, n. labor, v.i. lack, v.t. lack, v.i. lack, n. lamb, n. lamentation, n. land, n. landmark, n. languish, v.i.

N 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Entry-words leaness, n. leap, v.i. least, a. leave, n. leave, v.t. leaven, n. leaven, v.t. legion, n. lender, n. leprous, n.

N 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

Entry-words life, n. lift, v.t. light, n. lighten, v.t. like, a. like, adv. liken, v.t. likewise, adv. linger, v.i. list, v.i.

N 6 3 8 2 4 1 1 1 1 1

lap, v.i. lasciviousness, n. laughter, n. law, n. lay, v.t. lead, v.t.

1 1 1 4 4 1

less, n. lesser, adj. lest, conj. let, v.t. lick, v.t. lie, v.i.

2 1 2 2 1 2

live, v.i. living, n. lo, interj. lofty, adj. long, v.i. long-suffering, n.

4 1 2 1 3 1

Entry-words look, v.i. loose, v.t. loose, v.i. lord, n. lose, v.t. lot, n. lothe, v.t. love, v.t. love, n. lovingkindness, n. lowliness, n. lowly, adj. lucre, n. lust, v.i. ---------

N 4 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 -

90 This table shows that Webster usually selected biblical citations by himself in entries on words of high frequency. Out of the 111 citations Webster took directly from the Bible, there are 7 which manifestly concern biblical English. They are supplied in the entries on lamb, leanness, life, lift, light, live and loving-kindness. Webster clearly indicated that the 7 citations are related to biblical English. Examples are: W: LAMB, n. 2. The Lamb of God, in Scripture, the Savior Jesus Christ, who was typified by the paschal lamb. Behold the lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. John i. W: LOVING-KINDNESS, n. Tender regard; mercy; favor; a scriptural word. My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him. Ps. lxxxix.

This kind of indication can rarely be seen in Johnson’s Dictionary. In the L’s in his Dictionary, Johnson used such labelling only in the entry on loving-kindness: J: LOVINGKINDNESS. Tenderness; favour; mercy. A scriptural word.

Webster’s clear-cut indications attached to the 7 citations mentioned above signify that he differentiated the citations from other biblical citations. In other words, there is probability that the remaining 104 of his selection are supplied for the instruction of English usage. The contents of the following sub-entries strengthens this probability: W: LEAVE, n. 1. Permission; allowance; license; liberty granted by which restraint or illegality is removed. No friend has leave to bear away the dead. Dryden. David earnestly asked leave of me. 1 Sam. xx. W: LEGION, n. 3. A great number. Where one sin has entered, legions will force their way through the same breach. Rogers. My name is legion, for we are many. Mark v.

In these sub-entries, citations from the Bible are supplied together with those from works of men of letters, and no distinction is made between the two types of citations. This practice is also seen in some other entries and sub-entries such as ‘LESSER, a.’, ‘LIGHT, n. 7.’, ‘LAP, v.i.’, ‘LAY, v.t. 1.’, ‘LEAVE, n. 1.’, ‘LEGION, n. 3.’, ‘LET, v.t. 4.’ ‘LIKE, a. 2.’, ‘LIKE, a. 3.’, ‘LINGER, v.i. 1.’, ‘LIST, v.i.’, ‘LORD, n. 3.’, ‘LOT, n. 3.’, ‘LOTHE, v.t. 1.’, ‘LOTHE, v.t. 2.’ and ‘LUCRE, n.’. As a matter of fact, Webster often quoted from the Bible, remarking on English usage. Some examples are:

91 W: LAY, v.t. 1. Literally, to throw down; hence, to put or place; applied to things broad or long, and in this respect differing from set. We lay a book on the table, when we place it on its side, but we set it on the end. We lay the foundation of a house, but we set a building on its foundation. He laid his robe from him. Jonah iii. A stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den. Dan. vi. W: LIVE, v.i. 3. To be animated; to have the vital principle; to have the bodily functions in operation, or in a capacity to operate, as respiration, circulation of blood, secretions, &c.; applied to animals. I am Joseph; doth my father yet live ? Gen. xlv. W: LO, exclam. Look; see; behold; observe. This word is used to excite particular attention in a hearer to some object of sight, or subject of discourse. Lo, here is Christ. Matt. xxiv. Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Acts xiii.

Among these examples, the usage note and the biblical citations given in ‘LAY, v.t. 1.’ are particularly notable. In this sub-entry, Webster mentioned the difference between the sense of set and that of lay. This signifies that Webster supplied the citations from Jonah. and Dan. there genuinely from the viewpoint of English usage. The following are entries in which Webster commented on prepositional usage, illustrating them by means of biblical citations: W: LIKE, a. 2. Like is usually followed by to or unto, but it is often omitted. What city is like unto this great city? Rev. xviii. I saw three unclean spirits like frogs. Rev. xvi. Among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Dan. i. W: LUST, v.i. 1. To desire eagerly; to long; with after. Thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. Deut. xii.

In this way, when biblical citations of Webster’s own choice are observed, it gradually becomes clear that he often supplied them for the instruction of English usage, irrelevantly to his morality and terminology specific to the Bible.

4.5.5 Webster’s Biblical Citations Substituted for Johnson’s Webster did more than adding biblical citations of his own choice. He often substituted them for Johnson’s. When Webster’s biblical citations and Johnson’s are not the same in the entries corresponding to each other, and the entries are not divided into sub-entries, this means that Webster substituted his biblical citations for Johnson’s. There are three such cases in the

92 L’s; they are seen in the entries on least, lest and likewise. Firstly, the following is the contents of the entries on least in the two dictionaries: J: LEAST. adj. the superlative of little. Little beyond others; smallest. I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies shewed to thy servant. Gen. xxxii. 10. ---------W: LEAST, a. Least is often used without the noun to which it refers. “I am the least of the apostles,” that is, the least apostle of all the apostles. 1 Cor. xv.

Webster here commented on the usage of least by means of his biblical citation. Additionally, the citation from 1. Cor. here is even paraphrased in Webster’s words. It is clear that Webster supplied the citation based on his view of the usage of least rather than his morality. Secondly, the respective entries on lest in the two dictionaries are as follows: J: LEST. conj. That not. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; lest if he should exceed, then thy brother should seem vile. Deut. xxv. ---------W: LEST, con. That not; for fear that. Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Gen. iii. The phrase may be thus explained. Ye shall not touch it; that separated or dismissed, ye die. That here refers to the preceding command or sentence; that being removed or not observed, the fact being not so, ye will die. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come to thee. John. v.

In this entry, Webster evidently supplied a biblical citation to illustrate his grammatical explanation. Thirdly, the situation of the entries on likewise is as follows: J: LIKEWISE. adv. In like manner; also; moreover; too. Jesus said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. Mat. xxi. 24. ---------W: LIKEWISE, adv. In like manner; also; moreover; too. For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others. Ps. xlix.

Here, Webster provided neither usage notes nor grammatical explanation with the citation. The reason why he substituted his citation for Johnson’s in the entry may be that Johnson’s citation is rather complicated. Johnson’s includes a reporting verb and is composed of five clauses. In contrast to this, Webster’s is structurally simple and composed of three clauses. There are still other cases where Webster substituted his biblical citations for Johnson’s. When Johnson’s definitions and Webster’s are essentially the same and they supplied

93 different biblical citations from each other under such definitions, Webster’s citations are regarded as substitutions for Johnson’s. Such cases are seen in the entries on leap, long and loose, the contents of which will be investigated one by one. Firstly, the following are the contents of the entries on leap in the two dictionaries: J: To LEAP. v.n. 2. To rush with vehemence. God changed the spirit of the king into mildness, who in a fear leaped from his throne, and took her in his arms, till she came to herself again. Esth. xv. 8. ---------W: LEAP, v.i. 3. To rush with violence. And the man in whom the evil spirit was, leaped on them and overcame them -- Acts xix.

Webster’s citation in this entry is shorter than Johnson’s. We can confirm here again that Webster valued the conciseness of biblical citations. Secondly, in the entry on long, Webster substituted his citations for Johnson’s from a genuinely grammatical viewpoint: J: To LONG. v.n. To desire earnestly; to wish with eagerness continued, with for or after before the thing desired. And thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them. Deut. xxviii. 32. ---------W: LONG, v.i. 1. To desire earnestly or eagerly. I long to see you. Rom. i. I have longed after thy precepts. Ps. cxix. I have longed for thy salvation. Ps. cxix.

Here, Johnson remarked on prepositions to be used with long; therefore his citation can be regarded as an illustration of the remark. Webster did the same. However, Webster preferred to supply short citations from the Bible, including the phrases long after and long for. Thirdly, the citations in the respective entries on loose were supplied in this way: J: To LOOSE. v.a. 1. To unbind; to untie any thing fastened. The shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose. Acts. Who is worthy to loose the seals thereof. Rev. v. 2. ---------W: LOOSE, v.t. 1. To untie or unbind; to free from any fastening. Ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them to me. Matt. xxi.

Unlike others, Webster’s citation here is longer than Johnson’s. The reason why he supplied this citation is probably that it contains tie, an antonym of loose. It can be said that Webster tried to contrast loose with tie so that the sense of loose might be grasped easily; this citation seems to be in tune with his definition containing the phrase “To untie or unbind”. In consequence, Webster’s Puritanism is hardly observable in his biblical citations substituted for Johnson’s. Instead, the citations clearly reveal his view of English usage.

94 4.5.6 Webster’s Biblical Citations Borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary As analysed in Section 4.5.2, Webster borrowed 71 biblical citations of Johnson’s in the L’s in his Dictionary. Webster, however, did not necessarily incorporate the 71 citations as they were. There are three tendencies in his practice of incorporating Johnson’s biblical citations: Webster shortened many of Johnson’s citations; he occasionally made use of them for purposes different from Johnson’s; and there are times when he partially modified them based on his view of English usage. In this sub-section, the analysis will be made in accordance with these three tendencies. (1) Webster’s Abbreviation of Johnson’s Biblical Citations Webster shortened 23 biblical citations out of the 71 which he borrowed from the L’s in Johnson’s Dictionary. When Johnson’s citations are composed of compound sentences, Webster’s usual practice was to extract one clause from each. Examples are: J: To LAMENT. v.n. To mourn; to wail; to grieve; to express sorrow. Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing-men and women spake of Josiah in their lamentations. 2 Chron. ---------W: LAMENT, v.i. To mourn; to grieve; to weep or wail; to express sorrow. Jeremiah lamented for Josiah. 2. Chron. xxxv. J: To LAY. v.a. 19. To apply nearly. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. Prov. xxxi. 19. ---------W: LAY, v.t. 14. To put; to apply. She layeth her hand to the spindle. Prov. xxxi.

In this light, it may well be said that the following example indicates that Webster was concerned little with the religious implication of biblical citations: J: LOVELY. adj. Amiable; exciting love. Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided. 2 Sam. i. 23. ---------W: LOVELY, a. Amiable; that may excite love; possessing qualities which may invite affection. Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives – 2 Sam. i.

Webster sometimes did not hesitate to eliminate the middle of sentences as the following example shows:

95 J: LIGHT. n.s. 4. Reach of knowledge; mental view. Light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him. Dan. v. 11. ---------W: LIGHT, n. 7. Illumination of mind; instruction; knowledge. Light, understanding and wisdom – was found in him. Dan. v.

As seen in the examples here, Webster often tried to make biblical citations as simple as possible in terms of sentence structure. Webster borrowed 47 of Johnson’s citations as they are. Many of the 47 citations are composed of one or two clauses; 13 are of one clause and 21 are of two clauses. Few citations are composed of more than two clauses; there are 6 citations composed of three clauses, and only 2 composed of four clauses. The remaining citations are not of sentences but of phrases such as the following: J: LONGSUFFERING. adj. Patient; not easily provoked. The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness. Exod. xxxiv. 6. ---------W: LONGSUFFERING, a. Bearing injuries or provocation for a long time; patient; not easily provoked. The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness. Ex. xxxiv.

(2) Webster’s Unique Use of Johnson’s Biblical Citations Webster occasionally made use of Johnson’s biblical citations for purposes different from Johnson’s. In this occasion, Webster’s practice of borrowing Johnson’s biblical citations reveals his unique view of idioms, prepositional usage and the senses of some words. Firstly, the following example concerns Webster’s view of idioms: J: To LAY. v.a. 37: To LAY down. To commit to repose. I will lay me down in peace and sleep. Psal. xlviii. ---------W: LAY, v.t.: To lay one’s self down, to commit to repose. I will both lay me down in peace and sleep - Ps. iv.

In this example, while Johnson supplied a citation from Psal. to illustrate the idiom of lay down, Webster made use of it to illustrate lay one’s self down; Webster is thought to have had an idea that an object of lay is necessary before down. In the following example, while Johnson supplied a biblical citation including at last in the entry on the word last as a noun, Webster supplied the citation in the entry on the same word but as an adjective: J: LAST. n.s. 6: At LAST. In conclusion; at the end. Gad, a troop shall overcome him: but he shall overcome at the last. Gen. xlix. 19. ----------

96 W: LAST. a.: At last, at the last, at the end; in the conclusion. Gad, a troop shall overcome him; but he shall overcome at the last. Gen. xlix.

Webster provided a sub-entry for the idiom let down, which had not been Johnson’s practice. In this sub-entry, Webster incorporated Johnson’s biblical citation which had been supplied in a sub-entry irrelevant to idioms. J: LET. v.a. 10. To suffer any thing to take a course which requires no impulsive violence. She let them down by a cord through the window. Josh. ---------W: LET, v.t.: To let down, to permit to sink or fall; to lower. She let them down by a cord through the window. Josh. ii.

Secondly, Webster made use of Johnson’s citations to indicate prepositional usage. In the following sub-entries, Johnson supplied biblical citations without any usage notes: J: To LEARN. v.n. To take pattern. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly. Mat. xi. 29. J: To LIGHT. v.n. 2. To descend from a horse or carriage. When Naaman saw him running after him, he lighted down from the chariot to meet him. 2 Kings v. 21. Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. Gen. xxiv. 64.

Webster borrowed these citations and added a usage note to each of them as follows: W: LEARN, v.i. To gain or receive knowledge; to receive instruction; to take pattern; with of. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly --. Matt. xi. W: LIGHT, v.i. 3. To descend, as from a horse or carriage; with down, off, or from. He lighted down from his chariot. 2 Kings v. She lighted off the camel. Gen. xxiv.

Thirdly, Webster’s biblical citations show that he sometimes discriminated the senses of words more in detail than Johnson. In the entry on loose in Johnson’s Dictionary, there is a sub-entry in which he supplied 2 biblical citations under one definition: J: To LOOSE. v.a. 1. To unbind; to untie any thing fastened. Canst thou loose the bands of Orion. Job xxxviii. 31. Who is worthy to loose the seals thereof. Rev. v. 2.

97 Webster separated the citations and made use of them to illustrate the senses of loose which are different from each other: W: LOOSE, v.t. 1. To untie or unbind; to free from any fastening. Canst thou loose the bands of Orion? Job xxxviii. W: LOOSE, v.t. 9. To open. Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? Rev. v.

This example indicates that Webster thought that loose had the sense equivalent to that of open, which Johnson did not mention; in the whole of the entry on loose in his Dictionary, Johnson did not refer to this sense. It may be noted, in passing, that Webster supplied a citation from Job xxxviii above in the sub-entry ‘LOOSE, v.t. 1’ together with the citation “Ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them to me. Matt. xxi” which I referred to at the end of Section 4.5.5; this exemplifies that he regarded loose in the two citations as having the same sense. (3) Webster’s Modification of Johnson’s Biblical Citations Though not so often, there are times when Webster partially modified Johnson’s biblical citations based on his view of English usage. One example is seen in the entry on lay: J: To LAY. v.a. 20. To add; to conjoin. Wo unto them that lay field to field. Isa. v. 8. ---------W: LAY, v.t. 13. To add; to join. Wo to them that join house to house, that lay field to field. Is. v.

This is a rare example in that Webster lengthened Johnson’s biblical citation. Concerning the first clause of the sentence, Webster’s citation is different from Johnson’s in two respects; he replaced unto and lay in Johnson’s with to and join. Which of Webster’s and Johnson’s is in accord with the original clause? The answer is neither of them. The corresponding part in the AV reads: Woe vnto them that ioyne house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth.

The difference between the wording in the AV and that in Johnson’s citation can be regarded as the result of Johnson’s clerical error. Why, then, did Webster change unto to to? The entry on unto in Webster’s Dictionary implies that this change was caused not by Webster’s mistake but by his view of English usage. In this entry, Webster said about unto as follows:

98 [...] a compound of un, [on,] and to; of no use in the language, as it expresses no more than to. I do not find it in our mother tongue, nor is it ever used in popular discourse. It is found in writers of former times, but is entirely obsolete.

It was already analysed in Section 4.5.3 that Webster excluded Johnson’s biblical citations which Johnson had used to illustrate obsolete usage of words. It can be said that in quoting from the Bible, Webster was swayed by the temptation to modernize archaic and obsolete wording included in it. There are two other examples of the same kind. One of them is as follows: J: To LEAN. v.n. 2. To propend; to tend towards. Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Prov. iii. 5. ---------W: LEAN, v.i. 2. To incline or propend; to tend toward. Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding. Prov. iii.

In this example, Webster replaced unto after not with to. The preposition in the AV is unto: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and leane not vnto thine owne vnderstanding.

The remaining example of Webster’s modification is as follows: J: To LOSE. v.a. 3. To suffer deprivation of. If salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Matt. v. 13. ---------W:LOSE, v.t. 6. To suffer diminution or waste of. If the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? Matt. v.

The AV reads: But if the salt haue lost his sauour, wherewith shall it bee salted?

Webster here replaced have and his in the AV with hath and its, respectively. Evidently, Webster modified biblical English so that it may accord with the contemporary usage. In conjunction with this modification, it will be beneficial to refer to Thomas Pyles’s following opinion: He [Webster] had long been troubled by the bad grammar of the English Bible, such as its use of his for its, as in “If the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted?” (It is not surprising that its, which appears first in writing in 1594, was not used in 1611 by linguistically conservative theologians) [...]. (Pyles 1954:95)

This opinion is not about the citation in the entry on lose in Webster’s Dictionary but about his version of the English Bible; there is no knowing whether Pyles was aware of the

99 citation when he remarked as above. Webster published his version of the Bible in 1833, five years after his Dictionary. His citation from Matt. in the sub-entry ‘Lose, v.t.6.’ indicates that Webster had been rewriting the AV, compiling his Dictionary. The citation also indicates that his view of English grammar motivated him to rewrite the Bible. In this sense, Pyles’s opinion expressed from a linguistic viewpoint can be justified. By contrast, David Micklethwait seems to have thought that Webster had rewritten the Bible thoroughly induced by his morality, and that Webster’s major purpose of his version of the Bible had been to eliminate inappropriate words in terms of morality; Micklethwait (2000:191) has claimed that “Webster was particularly sensitive to rude words, and when he had finished work on the dictionary he set about expurgating the Bible”. When Webster’s modification of the sentence in the Bibleabove is taken into account, this assumption of Micklethwait’s can hardly be justified.

4.5.7 Generalization of the Analysis Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s are both characterized by an abundance of biblical citations. However, there are some distinctive differences between Johnson and Webster in their use of phrases and sentences from the Bible. As for Johnson, he generously supplied biblical citations in his Dictionary. He quoted from the Bible to illustrate the senses of words in general, and to provide encyclopaedic information. On the other hand, Webster had clear criteria in quoting from the Bible. He basically did not supply biblical citations to illustrate the usage and senses of obsolete words and to provide encyclopaedic information. Instead, Webster frequently made use of biblical citations to illustrate his explanation of contemporary usage. The number of Webster’s biblical citations is far smaller than that of Johnson’s. However, the small number can be regarded as evidence of his careful selection of the citations. There is a passage in which Webster mentioned his practice of quoting from the Bible. In the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, he stated: Under words which occur in the scriptures, I have often cited passages from our common version, not only to illustrate the scriptural or theological sense, but even the ordinary significations of the words. These passages are short, plain, appropriate, and familiar to most readers. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])

This statement is partially true and partially untrue. It is true that Webster’s biblical citations are short and plain; they are usually much shorter and plainer than Johnson’s. It is, however, untrue that he quoted from the common version of the Bible used among Americans at his time; he sometimes modified the original biblical phrases and sentences to make the wording in them suitable to the customary use of the language. It can now be concluded that Webster quoted from the Bible mainly for the purpose of improving English usage among Americans; for the sake of this purpose, he made full use of the American educational situation at his time which placed special emphasis on religious education. As he said in the passage above, many of his biblical citations are thought to have been familiar to most Americans, at least compared with Johnson’s. This must have been

100 beneficial for Americans to improve their English, though it may not have been adequate for religious education.

5:

Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency and the Inflected Forms of Such Verbs

5.1

Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency

5.1.1 An Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Verbs of High Frequency Verbs of high frequency are characterized by a wide range of senses. For this reason, both Johnson and Webster divided entries on this type of word into a considerable number of sub-entries. Accordingly, they also supplied a much larger number of citations in the entries than in others. The following table shows the situation. This is based on the results of the analysis of relevant entries with the exception of sub-entries provided for idioms in them. The ‘relevant entries’ referred to here are entries on verbs of high frequency which I mentioned in Section 2.4, principal verbs included in the verbs Johnson (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45) in the “Preface”]) enumerated as examples of “verbs too frequent in the English language”. Here, the spellings of entry-words and the abbreviations of parts of speech are Webster’s; and the letters ‘S’ and ‘C’ indicate the number of sub-entries and citations, respectively.

Table 6: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Entry-words bear, v.t. bear, v.i. break, v.t. break, v.i. cast, v.t. cast, v.i. come, v.i. fall, v.i. fall, v.t. get, v.t. get, v.n./v.i. give, v.t. give, v.i. go, v.i.

Johnson S C 32 69 9 20 22 47 12 38 31 69 3 9 15 48 36 88 4 7 17 54 9 49 22 62 3 7 49 128

Webster S C 20 7 6 4 23 2 13 3 25 11 4 4 9 12 28 22 5 --6 2 1 --23 11 3 1 39 16

Entry-words make, v.t. make, v.i. put, v.t. put, v.i. set, v.t. set, v.i. run, v.i. run, v.t. take, v.t. take, v.i. throw, v.t. throw, v.i. turn, v.t. turn. v.i.

Johnson S C 30 103 4 29 21 82 3 4 26 125 11 21 43 91 10 25 66 169 4 10 13 31 2 1 34 66 20 44

Webster S C 31 16 3 --14 10 3 2 29 20 8 2 56 22 13 6 40 22 4 4 10 3 2 --32 16 17 6

This table indicates that Johnson provided 19.7 sub-entries on average per entry and Webster 16.7 within the respective ranges of entries on verbs of high frequency. It has often been said that Johnson divided entries into a considerable number of sub-entries based on the senses of entry-words. This is true in most cases. Daisuke Nagashima (1983:191-192),

102 for instance, found that in some entries the number of sub-entries in Johnson’s Dictionary is larger than that in the OED. As far as entries on verbs of high frequency are concerned, however, it is also interesting that Webster sometimes detailed the senses of entry-words more than Johnson. To be specific, Table 6 shows that Webster divided 9 entries out of 28 into more sub-entries than Johnson: break (v.t), break (v.i.), cast (v.i.), fall (v.t.), give (v.t.), make (v.t.), set (v.t.), run (v.i.) and run (v.t.). As to the entry on run (v.i.), especially, Webster provided 56 sub-entries in it, compared with Johnson’s counterpart of 43. In respect of the number of citations, it was confirmed in Section 4.1.1 that Johnson allocated 4,047 citations in all in 1,310 entries on words for the letter L; this means that Johnson usually allocated 3.1 citations on average per entry. As for Webster, the analysis in Section 4.3.2 revealed that he usually allocated 0.3 citations on average per entry. In entries on verbs of high frequency, on the other hand, the perusal of Table 6 shows that Johnson allocated 1,496 citations in 28 entries, compared to Webster’s 224 for the same number of entries. This means that Johnson allocated 53.4 citations on average per entry in contrast to Webster’s 8.0 here; the former allocated citations 17 times more frequently than usual, and the latter 27 times. In this way, it is found that both lexicographers divided entries on verbs of high frequency into a considerable number of sub-entries, supplying quite a large number of citations in them. However, this does not mean that Johnson and Webster treated this type of word identically. In order to determine the differences between the two lexicographers in this respect, it becomes necessary in the first place to investigate how they recognized verbs of high frequency. As for Johnson, he seems to have been greatly troubled by the treatment of these verbs. This is because he tried to tackle them with a normative attitude. In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson stated: My labour has [...] been much increased by a class of verbs too frequent in the English language, of which the signification is so loose and general, the use so vague and indeterminate [...]. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45) in the “Preface”])

In addition to the point expressed in this passage, the mutability of the senses of the verbs also troubled him: [...] and the senses [of verbs of high frequency] detorted so widely from the first idea, that it is hard to trace them through the maze of variation, to catch them on the brink of utter inanity, to circumscribe them by any limitations, or interpret them by any words of distinct and settled meaning [...]. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45) in the “Preface”])

For these reasons, Johnson had to make an excuse to the readers of his Dictionary for his probable failure in the treatment of the verbs: If of these the whole power is not accurately delivered, it must be remembered, that while our language is yet living, and variable by the caprice of every one that speaks it, these words are hourly shifting their relations, and can no more be ascertained in a dictionary, than a grove, in the agitation of a storm, can be accurately delineated from its picture in the water. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45) in the “Preface”])

103 This statement reveals the distress of the lexicographer who aimed to stabilize the senses of the verbs, but, at the same time, became aware of their irresistible mutability. Johnson’s distress is reflected in the definitions given in some sub-entries on this type of verb. Examples are: J: To BEAR. v.a. 1. This is a word used with such latitude, that it is not easily explained. J: To BREAK. v.n. 27. It is to be observed of this extensive and perplexed verb, that, in all its significations, whether active or neutral, it has some reference to its primitive meaning, by implying either detriment, suddenness, or violence. J: To GO. v.n. 68. The senses of this word are very indistinct: its general notion is motion or progress.

In Webster’s case, on the other hand, he was free from such distress; he was not a lexicographer who felt so much necessity to stabilize the senses of the verbs. In the “Preface” and the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, as well as in relevant entries, there is not the slightest evidence to suggest Webster’s trouble in treating such verbs. There is another noticeable difference between the two lexicographers in the treatment of the type of verb. This is observed in the structure of entries on the verbs. In Johnson’s case, he generally did nothing more than simply divide the entries into sub-entries based on their senses, and in the respective sub-entries he usually gave definitions one by one separately from one another. For this reason, each of the sub-entries is basically independent of and not interrelated with others. For instance, the definitions in the first three sub-entries on break (v.a.) in Johnson’s Dictionary are as follows: J: To BREAK. v.a. 1-3. 1. To part by violence. 2. To burst, or open by force. 3. To pierce; to divide, as light divides darkness.

Likewise, some of Johnson’s definitions in the sub-entries on make (v.a.) are as follows: J: To MAKE. v.a. 1-3. 1. To create. 2. To form of materials. 3. To compose: as, materials or ingredients.

This may be called a prototype of a technique for the treatment of verbs of high frequency in English dictionaries. Compared with this practice of Johnson’s, Webster exercised his ingenuity in indicating the senses of this type of verb. That is, he often indicated primary senses of the verbs at the beginnings of relevant entries. Examples are: W: BREAK, v.t. [Introductory Remarks] The primary sense is to strain, stretch, rack, drive; hence, to strain and burst or break.

104 W: MAKE, v.t. [Introductory Remarks] The primary sense is to cause to act or do, to press, drive, strain or compel, as in the phrases, make your servant work, make him go.

The most significant example is observed in the entry on take (v.t.). Webster divided this entry into 40 sub-entries. In the first sub-entry, he made the following remarks which end with the word Thus and the comma: W: TAKE, v.t. 1. In a general sense, to get hold or gain possession of a thing in almost any manner, either by receiving it when offered, or by using exertion to obtain it. Take differs from seize, as it does not always imply haste, force or violence. It more generally denotes to gain or receive into possession in a peaceable manner, either passively or by active exertions. Thus,

Then, after Thus, Webster provided other sub-entries one after another. This indicates that the first sub-entry is an introduction to the following 39 sub-entries. Such an attitude is in no way found in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary; Johnson simply stated the following in the first sub-entry on the word: J: To TAKE. v.a. 1. To receive what is offered.

It can now be said that Webster’s treatment of verbs of high frequency, a type of word which has a wide range of senses, is generally more skilled and systematic than Johnson’s.

5.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency As mentioned in the previous sub-section, Johnson supplied 1,496 citations in entries on verbs of high frequency except for citations in sub-entries especially provided for idioms. The following table shows the sources of these citations, and the number of citations from respective sources.

Table 7: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary Sources Bible

Freq. 249

Sources Tillotson

Freq. 9

Sources Philips

Freq. 3

Sources Otway

Freq. 1

Dryden

183

Collier

9

Moxon

3

More

1

Shakespeare

165

Sidney

9

Guardian

3

May

1

Locke

101

Butler

9

Granville

3

King Charles

1

Addison

94

Felton

9

Digby

3

Hubbard

1

Bacon

83

Cheyne

8

Broome

3

Harvey

1

105 Table 7: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary (continued) Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Milton

49

Browne

8

Duppa

2

Hakewill

1

Swift

45

Rowe

7

Tusser

2

Grew

1

Pope

40

Denham

7

Tickell

2

Glany

1

Knolles

29

Wake

7

Raleigh

2

Foyer

1

Boyle

20

Tatler

7

Holder

2

Fairfax

1

Hooker

20

Taylor

6

Hammond

2

Dorset

1

Temple

19

Spectator

6

Graunt

2

Cowley

1

South

18

Bentley

6

Allestree

2

Congr. Dedic.

1

Arbuthnot

16

Woodward

5

Gay

2

Child

1

Watts

16

Herbert

5

Davies

2

Calamy

1

Burnet

14

Richard

5

Carew

2

Bramh

1

L’Estrange

13

Daniel

4

Baker

2

Blount

1

Clarendon

13

Wiseman

4

Ayliffe

2

Blackmore

1

Atterbury

12

Hayward

4

Wotton

1

Ascham

1

Waller

12

Garth

4

Theocrit

1

Ainsworth

1

Prior

12

Donne

4

Suckling

1

Abbot

1

Mortimer

12

Camden

4

Sprat

1

old proverb

1

Spenser

11

Wilkins

3

Smith

1

-----

---

Hale

11

Tate

3

Saunderson

1

-----

---

Ben Jonson

10

Ray

3

Sandys

1

-----

---

When this table is compared with Table 1 in Section 4.1.1, one notable fact is revealed. As seen in Table 1, Johnson generally quoted from Shakespeare in first-order frequency, Dryden in second-order and the Bible in third-order. This rank-order is inverted in the case of entries on verbs of high frequency. This phenomenon can hardly be regarded as a chance happening. In entries on words for the letter L, citations from the Bible account for 6.7%, or 270 in number out of 4,047. By contrast, in entries on verbs of high frequency, they account for 16.7%, or 249 out of 1,496. This difference is not negligible, and it strongly indicates the probability that Johnson intentionally quoted especially frequently from the Bible in entries on such verbs. Table 7 also reveals one more significant fact. It was also observed in Section 4.2.2 that Johnson occasionally replaced his definitions with citations from authors who are not men of letters. As confirmed then, Johnson quoted especially often from Hanmer, Harris, Hill and Miller on that occasion. However, none of the four authors appears in Table 7. Needless to say, it is never possible for the four authors to avoid using verbs of high frequency. As Henry Fowler and Francis Fowler (Sykes 1976: v) remarked in the “Preface” to the first edition of the COD (1911), the verbs belong to the types of words which “no one

106 goes through the day without using scores or hundreds of times”. At the same time, however, verbs of high frequency are not a type of word which requires encyclopaedic explanation. It was already confirmed that Johnson replaced his definitions with citations mainly for the purpose of providing encyclopaedic information. In this sense, the fact that the four authors do not appear in Table 7 signifies that Johnson selected the sources of citations according to the types of entry-words. It may be worth pointing out, in passing, that Johnson likewise rarely quoted from the four authors in entries on function words with the exception of sub-entries provided for idioms in them, which will be clearly seen in Table 13 in Section 6.1.2, Table 18 in Section 6.2.2 and Table 24 in Section 8.1.1. In the case of Webster’s Dictionary, the sources of 224 citations supplied in entries on verbs of high frequency are as shown below.

Table 8: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Webster’s Dictionary Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Bible

73

Spenser

2

Tate

1

Davies

1

Dryden

21

Spectator

2

Sprat

1

Daniel

1

Shakespeare

17

Rowe

2

South

1

Collier

1

Bacon

13

Prior

2

Sidney

1

Clarendon

1

Addison

12

Moxon

2

Sanderson

1

Childs

1

Pope

11

Mortimer

2

Ruth

1

Carew

1

Locke

7

Knolles

2

Ray

1

Burnet

1

Swift

5

Herbert

2

Newton

1

Boyle

1

Woodward

3

Ben Jonson

2

Mass. Report

1

Ayliffe

1

Tillotson

3

Arbuthnot

2

L’Estrange

1

old proverb

1

Milton

3

Young

1

Hopkinson

1

‘unspecified’

2

Watts

2

Wiseman

1

Holder

1

-----

---

Wake

2

Waller

1

Felton

1

-----

---

Temple

2

Taylor

1

Dwight

1

-----

---

This table indicates that Webster quoted more than ten times from each of the Bible, Dryden, Shakespeare, Bacon, Addison and Pope. Among the sources, he quoted from the Bible in first-order frequency, Dryden in second-order and Shakespeare in third-order. The rank-order of the three sources is identical with that in the case of entries on words for the letter L, which is revealed in Table 3 in Section 4.3.2. Besides, he seldom quoted from American authors in either case. This situation indicates that Webster, in contrast to Johnson, basically did not select sources of citations according to the types of entry-words.

107 5.1.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Biblical Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency As I analysed above, both Johnson and Webster quoted from the Bible in first-order frequency in entries on verbs of high frequency. To be more specific, they supplied biblical citations in the entries as shown in the table below. The letters J and W here stand for Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s, and the figures indicate the number of biblical citations in respective entries.

Table 9: Biblical Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries Entry-words bear, v.t. bear, v.i. break, v.t. break, v.i. cast, v.t. cast, v.i. come, v.i. fall, v.i. fall, v.t. get, v.t.

J 11 --2 3 9 --6 13 --11

W 3 ----1 8 --8 9 -----

Entry-words get, v.i. give, v.t. give, v.i. go, v.i. make, v.t. make, v.i. put, v.t. put, v.i. set, v.t. set, v.i.

J 5 8 --30 40 2 25 --24 2

W --6 --3 5 --3 --8 ---

Entry-words run, v.i. run, v.t. take, v.t. take, v.i. throw, v.t. throw, v.i. turn, v.t. turn. v.i. ---------

J 10 1 34 --3 --6 4 -----

W 2 1 10 ------4 2 -----

This table shows that Johnson supplied biblical citations in 21 entries on verbs of high frequency out of 28 to be treated here. This means that biblical citations are supplied in almost all these entries in his Dictionary; only in 7 entries did he not quote from the Bible. More specifically, Johnson provided 551 sub-entries in total within the range of these 28 entries, which is reflected in Table 6 in Section 5.1.1. He supplied biblical citations for approximately a quarter of them, specifically for 138 sub-entries. We can confirm here that Johnson liberally quoted from the Bible in entries on verbs of high frequency. By contrast, Webster was manifestly far less liberal than Johnson in supplying biblical citations in entries on this type of verb. He entirely eliminated Johnson’s biblical citations supplied in 6 entries, namely the entries on break (v.t.), get (v.t.), get (v.i.), make (v.i.), set (v.i.) and throw (v.t.). Additionally, it can be clearly observed that in almost all entries Webster eliminated Johnson’s biblical citations; Webster’s biblical citations are smaller in number than Johnson’s in 13 entries, and in only one entry, on come (v.i.), Webster’s outnumber Johnson’s by a margin of 2. In this way, when compared with Johnson, Webster supplied quite a small number of biblical citations in entries on these verbs. However, in terms of the use of the citations, Webster was far more skilful than Johnson in light of lexicographical technique, as will be proved below. As mentioned above, Johnson supplied biblical citations in 138 sub-entries on verbs of high frequency. These sub-entries can be divided into two types. In 92 out of these 138, citations from the Bible are supplied together with citations from other sources (Type 1); in the remaining 46 sub-entries, only citations from the Bible are supplied (Type 2). The

108 following table shows the situation. The figures here are sub-entry numbers as marked by Johnson.

Table 10: Biblical Citations in Sub-entries on Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary Entry-words bear, (v.a.)

Type 2 7, 9, 12, 13.

bear, (v.n.) break, (v.a.)

Type 1 2, 8, 13, 17, 24. ----1.

break, (v.n.) cast, (v.a.)

10. 1, 9, 10.

cast, (v.n.) come, (v.n.)

----3, 6, 13.

----3, 6, 7, 11, 19. ----4, 15.

set, (v.n.) run, (v.n.)

fall, (v.n.)

3, 5, 30.

run, (v.a.)

fall, (v.a.)

2, 8, 9, 11, 22, 28, 33. -----

-----

take, (v.a.)

get, (v.a.) get, (v.n.) give, (v.a.) give, (v.n.)

1, 3, 14, 15. 1, 4, 7. 1, 2, 4, 7, 20. -----

--------6. -----

go, (v.n.)

5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 26, 29, 35, 47.

2, 11, 17, 22, 48.

---------

Entry-words make, (v.a.)

Type 1 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17. 2, 4. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16. ----1, 2, 10, 12, 20, 21. 1. 1, 5, 9, 35, 37. 4.

Type 2 21, 22, 29.

3, 10, 12, 13, 18, 35, 47, 65.

take, (v.n.) throw, (v.a.) throw, (v.n.) turn, (v.a.)

1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 22, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 50. ----1. ----9.

turn, (v.n.)

8, 12.

make, (v.n.) put, (v.a.) put. (v.n.) set, (v.a.)

----4, 5, 11, 12, 18. ----19, 22. 3. 4, 6, 36. -----

------------15, 18, 30, 33. -----

As to the sub-entries of Type 1, Johnson manifestly did not distinguish biblical citations from other citations there. The following is a couple of examples of the contents in this type of sub-entry: J: To BREAK. v.a. 1. To part by violence. When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets of fragments took ye up? Mark, viii. 19. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. Psalm ii. 3. See, said the sire, how soon ‘tis done; Then took and broke them one by one: So strong you’ll be in friendship ty’d; So quickly broke, if you divide. Swift.

109 J: To CAST. v.a. 1. To throw with the hand. I rather chuse to endure the wounds of those darts, which envy casteth at novelty, than to go on safely and sleepily in the easy ways of ancient mistakings. Raleigh’s Hist. of the World. They had compassed in his host, and cast darts at the people from morning till evening. 1 Macc. vii. 80. Then cast thy sword away, And yield thee to my mercy, or I strike. Dryden and Lee.

Concerning the sub-entries of Type 2, the situation is as shown below: J: To COME. v.n. 4. To proceed; to issue. Behold, my son, which came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life. 2 Sa. xvi. 11. I came forth from the father, and am come into the world. Jo. xvi. 28. J: To FALL. v.n. 3. To drop; to be held no longer. His chains fell off from his hands. Acts xii. 7. J: To GIVE. v.a. 6. To quit; to yield as due. Give place, thou stranger, to an honourable man. Ecclus.

Though Johnson exclusively supplied biblical citations in these sub-entries, it seems that such senses as “To proceed; to issue” of come, “To drop; to be held no longer” of fall and “To quit; to yield as due” of give could have been illustrated by citations other than those from the Bible. It may safely be said that Johnson quoted from the Bible in these subentries because of his attachment to morality, not because of his wish to indicate the senses and usage of the language. In Webster’s case, he borrowed some biblical citations from Johnson’s Dictionary. They account for 42 of 73 citations from the Bible within the range of entries on verbs of high frequency in Webster’s Dictionary. In other words, Webster disregarded 249 of Johnson’s biblical citations and chose 31 passages directly from the Bible by himself. However, little can be known about his criteria for the selection of these 31 passages. Only the fact is found that Webster quoted one of them to show the sense of a word in biblical English as follows: W: RUN, v.i. 55. In Scripture, to pursue or practice the duties of religion. Ye did run well; who did hinder you? Gal. v.

As for the remaining 30 passages, Webster quoted them genuinely to illustrate the usual senses of entry-words. Besides, he did not provide a usage note with them. Instead, concerning the 42 citations he borrowed from Johnson, the analysis of them fairly clearly reveals how Webster made use of biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency. I will discuss the point below. With regard to the point, what is especially conspicuous is that Webster boldly shortened most biblical citations which he borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary. Examples are:

110 J: To GO. v.n. 8. To depart from a place; to move from a place; the opposite of to come. I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice; only you shall not go very far away. Ex. viii. 28. ---------W: GO, v.i. 5. To depart; to move from a place; opposed to come. The mail goes and comes every day, or twice a week. I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice. Ex. viii. J: To MAKE. v.a. 5. To produce as the agent. When their hearts were merry they said, Call for Sampson, that he may make us sport. Judg. xvi. 25. ---------W: MAKE, v.t. 6. To produce or effect, as the agent. Call for Sampson, that he may make us sport. Judges xvi.

Webster shortened Johnson’s biblical citations even in the following way; he cut out short phrases from Johnson’s citations here, apparently disregarding their context: J: To BEAR. v.a. 2. To carry as a burden. They bear him upon the shoulder; they carry him and set him in his place. Isaiah, x.vi. 7. As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings. Deuteronomy, xxxii. 11. --------W: BEAR, v.t. 2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, “they bear him upon the shoulder;” “the eagle beareth them on her wings.” Isaiah. Deuteronomy.

The examples above clearly show that Webster did not choose biblical passages to be quoted based on his morality. Actually, most of Webster’s biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency are composed of less than ten words. They form a contrast with citations from other sources. In other words, when Webster borrowed other citations from entries on verbs of high frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary, he did not make them so short as he did in the case of biblical citations. In many cases, Webster’s citations from the sources other than the Bible are composed of more than ten words as shown below: J: To TAKE. v.a. 42. To draw; to derive. The firm belief of a future judgment, is the most forcible motive to a good life; because taken from this consideration of the most lasting happiness and misery. Tillotson. ---------W: TAKE, v.t. 28. To draw; to deduce. The firm belief of a future judgement is the most forcible motive to a good life, because taken from this consideration of the most lasting happiness and misery. Tillotson.

111 J: To TAKE. v.a. 48. To suppose; to receive in thought; to entertain in opinion. Is a man unfortunate in marriage? Still it is because he was deceived; and so took that for virtue and affection which was nothing but vice in a disguise. South. ---------W: TAKE, v.t. 31. To suppose; to receive in thought; to entertain in opinion; to understand. This I take to be the man’s motive. He took that for virtue and affection which was nothing but vice in disguise. South.

Evidently, Webster particularly tried to make biblical citations as short as possible. The reason for this can be ascribed to Webster’s recognition of the relationship between the American people and the Bible. When the situation of religious education at this time, which I discussed in Section 3.3.5, is taken into account, it is little wonder if Webster thought that short phrases and sentences from the Bible were enough for the readers of his Dictionary to understand in what context the respective entry-words were used. However, Webster did not shorten Johnson’s biblical citations merely to save space in his Dictionary. Shortening Johnson’s biblical citations as shown above, Webster uniquely made use of them. This can be noticed after we fully recognize that Webster very often shortened Johnson’s citations from the Bible and that in most cases he did not thought of morality when quoting biblical passages in entries on verbs of high frequency. In concrete terms, through the analysis of such shortened citations, it becomes possible to know Webster’s view of the senses and usage of some verbs of high frequency which is considerably different from Johnson’s. This can especially be said when Webster provided usage notes with such citations. In the following analysis, I will refer to some examples to clarify the point. Firstly, Webster often made use of Johnson’s biblical citations to illustrate his own view of the senses of verbs of high frequency. In the first sub-entry in the entry on give (v.a.), Johnson quoted from Mat. and Ex. to illustrate his definition as follows: J: To GIVE. v.a.1. To bestow; to confer without any price or reward. Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. Mat. xxv. Give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord. Ex. x. 25.

It is clear here that Johnson thought that the verb give in the sentence from Mat. had the same sense as that in the sentence from Ex. Webster thought differently. He separated the citations and supplied them in different sub-entries as shown below: W: GIVE, v.t.3. To impart; to bestow. Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. Matt. xxv. W: GIVE, v.t. 11. To afford; to supply; to furnish. Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt-offerings. Ex. x.

112 There is one other example of the same kind. It is seen in the entry on set (v.t.). Johnson supplied biblical citations in a sub-entry there as follows: J: To SET. v.a. 10. To fix the affection; to determine the resolution. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Col. iii. 2. Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, the heart of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccl.

Webster separated these citations in this way: W: SET, v.t. 15. To fix; to place; as the heart or affections. Set your affections on things above. Col. iii. W: SET, v.t. 16. To fix firmly; to predetermine. The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccles viii.

Secondly, it is occasionally possible to grasp the differences between Johnson’s view of English grammar and Webster’s through the analysis of their biblical citations. One example is this: J: To SET. v.n. 3. To be extinguished or darkened, as the sun at night. Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set, by reason of his age. 1 Kings xiv. 4. W: SET, v.t. 29. To dim; to darken or extinguish. Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age. 1 Kings xiv.

Differently from his usual practice, Webster here copied Johnson’s biblical citation as it is. However, while Johnson supplied the citation in the entry on set as an intransitive verb, Webster in that as a transitive verb. Incidentally, Johnson seems to have stuck to the view that set in this citation is an intransitive verb; he was to leave the citation in the same entry in the fourth edition of his Dictionary. Thirdly, there are times when Webster provided usage notes, referring to Johnson’s biblical citations. In the entry on come (v.n.), Johnson simply quoted from Job. to illustrate his definition: J: To COME. v.n. 6. To change condition either for better or worse. His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not. Job xiv. 21.

Webster quoted this sentence in the following context:

113 W: COME, v.i. 3. To advance and arrive at some state or condition; as, the ships came to action; the players came to blows; is it come to this? His sons come to honor and he knoweth it not. Job xiv. I wonder how he came to know what had been done; how did he come by his knowledge? the heir comes into possession of his estate; the man will come in time to abhor the vices of his youth, or he will come to be poor and despicable, or to poverty. In these and similar phrases, we observe the process or advance is applied to the body or to the mind, indifferently; and to persons or events.

The following is another example: J: To SET. v.a. 10. To fix the affection; to determine the resolution. Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, the heart of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccl. ---------W: SET, v.t. 16. To fix firmly; to predetermine. The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccles viii. Hence we say, a thing is done of set purpose; a man is set, that is, firm or obstinate in his opinion or way.

Concerning this point, it is not that Johnson did not quote from the Bible to illustrate his view of the usage of verbs of high frequency. He, however did this only in 2 sub-entries out of 138 in which he supplied biblical citations; the one is a sub-entry of Type 1, and the other is that of Type 2. Concerning the former, he supplied 9 citations in a sub-entry on come (v.n.), one of which is a biblical citation. This sub-entry begins as follows: J: To COME. v.n. 3. To move in any manner towards another; implying the idea of being received by another, or of tending towards another. The word always respects the place to which the motion tends, not that place which it leaves; yet this meaning is sometimes almost evanescent and imperceptible. I did hear The galloping of horse: who wasn’t came by? Sh. Macbeth. Bid them cover the table, serve in the meat, and we will come in to dinner. Shakesp. Merchant of Venice. As soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance the first fruits. 2 Chron. xxxi. 5.

As for the latter, it is a sub-entry on go (v.n.). The following is the whole of its contents: J: To GO. v.n. 48. To be in any state. This sense is impersonal. It shall go ill with him that is left in his tabernacle. Job xx. He called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house. 1 Chr. vii. 23.

                               

114                    

              



5.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Citations from Sources Other than the Bible in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency In this sub-section, I will first analyse Johnson’s practice of using citations from sources other than the Bible when he provided usage notes, and analyse how Webster followed and modified the practice after that. Besides, I will also investigate how Webster made use of such citations of Johnson’s. As confirmed in the previous sub-section, in spite of the fact that Johnson supplied abundant biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency, he rarely used them to illustrate the usage of words. This fact may seem to indicate that he hardly provided usage notes in those entries. Actually, however, Johnson occasionally instructed the usage of words there, and he also illustrated them with a considerable number of citations. In this practice, Johnson basically supplied citations from sources other than the Bible; he evidently avoided quoting from the Bible in such cases, which strengthens the probability that he supplied biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency almost entirely because of his morality. How, then, did Johnson make use of citations taken from sources other than the Bible? Johnson used them in two ways for the purpose of illustrating his comments on the usage of relevant words. One way is that he supplied such citations to show the ‘incorrect’ use of entry-words. In the following examples, Johnson censured Dryden’s and Hooker’s use of give, and Shakespeare’s use of set: J: To GIVE. v.n. 1. To rush; to fall on; to give the assault. A phrase merely French, and not worthy of adoption. Your orders come too late, the fight’s begun; The enemy gives on with fury led. Dryd. Ind. Emp. Hannibal gave upon the Romans. Hooke’s Rom. Hist. J: To SET. v.n. 10. It is commonly used in conversation for sit, which, though undoubtedly barbarous, is sometimes found in authors. If they set down before’s, ‘fore they remove, Bring up your army. Shakespeare.

The other way is that Johnson supplied citations to illustrate ‘correct’ use of entry-words under his usage notes. He did this especially when indicating the prepositions to be used with the verbs concerned. Examples are observable in the sub-entries on bear (v.n.), break (v.a.), set (v.a.) and run (v.n.). Johnson supplied 21 citations in total from 16 authors in these four sub-entries: 2 each from Addison, Bacon, Ben Jonson, William Broome and Dryden, and 1 each from Robert Boyle, Thomas Burnet, Samuel Daniel, Nehemiah Grew, Samuel Butler, Locke, Milton, John Ray, Shakespeare, John Tillotson and John Wilkins. It is notable that even in this case of showing ‘good’ examples not a single sentence from the

115 Bible, the source of first-order frequency within the range of entries on verbs of high frequency, is included in them. The following is a couple of examples: J: To BEAR. v.n. 7. To act as an impellent, or as a reciprocal power; generally with the particles upon or against. We were encounter’d by a mighty rock, Which being violently born upon, Our helpless ship was splitted in the midst. Shakespeare. Upon the tops of mountains, the air which bears against the restagnant quicksilver, is less pressed. Boyle. [Other citations from Burnet, Dryden, Ray, Wilkins and Broom are left out. K.M.] J: To SET. v.a. 13. To exhibit; to display; to propose. With before. Through the variety of my reading, I set before me many examples both of ancient and later times. Bacon. Reject not then what offer’d means: who knows But God hath set before us, to return thee Home to thy country and his sacred house? Milton. Long has my soul desir’d this time and place, To set before your sight your glorious race. Dryden. [Other citations from Tillotson, Addison, Broome are left out. K.M.]

The above are two patterns of Johnson’s use of citations from the sources other than the Bible. As for Webster, he apparently followed these patterns. He also indicated ‘incorrect’ and ‘correct’ use of entry-words, supplying the same type of citation. Additionally, in this practice, Webster often borrowed citations supplied in the entries on verbs of high frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary. However, this does not mean that Webster accepted Johnson’s view of the usage of verbs of high frequency. Making use of Johnson’s citations, Webster expressed his unique view of these verbs. Firstly, he indicated the ‘incorrect’ use of bear, break, get and make in the sub-entries ‘BEAR, v.i. 1’, ‘BREAK, v.i. 11’, ‘GET, v.a. 5’, ‘GET, v.t. 2’ and ‘MAKE, v.t. 17’. The following is a couple of examples taken from these sub-entries, which clearly shows how Webster made use of Johnson’s practice and citations based on his unique view of these words: J: To BEAR. v.n. 1. To suffer pain. Stranger, cease thy care: Wise is the soul; but man is born to bear. Jove weighs affairs of earth in dubious scales, And the good suffers while the bad prevails. Pope’s Odyssey. ---------W: BEAR, v.i. 1. To suffer, as with pain. But man is born to bear. Pope. This is unusual in prose; and though admissible, is rendered intransitive, merely by the omission of pain, or other word expressive of evil.

116 J: To GET. v.a. 4. To have possession of; to hold. Then forcing thee, by fire he made thee bright; Nay, thou hast got the face of man. Herbert. ---------W: GET, v.t. 2. To have. Thou hast got the face of a man. Herbert. This is a most common, but gross abuse of this word. We constantly hear it said, I have got no corn, I have got no money, she has got a fair complexion, when the person means only, I have no corn, I have no money, she has a fair complexion.

As these examples indicate, Webster certainly made use of Johnson’s citations in his practice, but always provided usage notes which had not been provided by Johnson. Incidentally, as to the second example of the above, it seems strange that Johnson, who was basically prescriptive and cared about the preservation of ‘genuinely’ literary expressions, did not comment on have got. As Webster suggested, this is a colloquial expression; the OED attached the label “colloq.” to have got. In this sense, Webster may be said to have been more prescriptive than Johnson here. Besides, it can even be said that his view of the expression revealed in the sub-entry is in common with that of some lexicographers of modern English dictionaries. For instance, the authors of the COBUILD has explained the expression as follows: [...] ‘have’ alone would be correct but more formal. The word got itself adds nothing to the meaning of ‘have’. The form have got looks as if it is the auxiliary ‘have’ followed by the past participle of the verb ‘get’, but it is used with the same meanings as the main verb ‘have’, in the senses of owning or possessing things.

This explanation basically agrees with Webster’s. Webster’s practice of making use of Johnson’s citations for the purpose of illustrating the ‘incorrect use’ of verbs of high frequency may be understood better if we further refer to a sub-entry on make (v.t.), where Webster rewrote a phrase in a citation from Dryden which was taken from Johnson’s Dictionary: J: To MAKE. v.a. 16. To intend; to purpose to do. Gomez; what maks’t thou here with a whole brotherhood of city-bailiffs? Dryden’s Spanish Fryar. ---------W: MAKE, v.t. 17. To intend or to do; to purpose to do. Gomez, what mak’st thou here, with a whole brotherhood of city bailiffs? [Not used.] Dryden. We now say, what doest thou here?

Secondly, Webster showed a strong interest in indicating prepositions to be used with verbs concerned as Johnson did. However, in this case, Webster borrowed only one citation from Johnson’s Dictionary. He did this in a sub-entry on cast (v.i.) as follows:

117 J: To CAST. v.n. 1. To contrive; to turn the thoughts. We have three that bend themselves, looking into the experiments of their fellows, and cast about how to draw out of them things of use and practice for man’s life and knowledge. Bacon’s New Atlantis All events, called casual, among inanimate bodies, are mechanically produced according to the determinate figures, textures, and motions of those bodies, which are not conscious of their own operations, nor contrived and cast about how to bring such events to pass. Bentley.. ---------W: CAST, v.i. 1. To throw forward, as the thoughts, with a view to some determination; or to turn or revolve in the mind; to contrive; sometimes followed by about. To cast about how to perform or obtain. Bacon. Bentley.

Here again, Webster made use of Johnson’s citation based on his own view of English usage. Webster, however, preferred inventing examples to borrowing Johnson’s citations as far as the instruction of prepositional usage is concerned within the range of entries on verbs of high frequency. The following examples suggest this preference of his: W: BREAK, v.t. 18. To dissolve any union; sometimes with off ; as, to break off a connection. W: BREAK, v.i. 10. To make way with violence or suddenness; to rush; often with a particle; as, to break in; to break in upon, as calamities; to break over, as a flood; to break out, as a fire; to break forth, as light or a sound.

In this way, in indicating the ‘incorrect’ use of entry-words and showing the ‘correct’ use of prepositions concerned, Webster made use of Johnson’s patterns and citations based on his unique view of English usage within the range of entries on verbs of high frequency. However, referring to Webster’s use of citations taken from sources other than the Bible within this range, there are more to be stated here. To be specific, Webster availed himself of Johnson’s citations to illustrate the senses of some verbs which were not mentioned by Johnson and to illustrate a certain type of expression of his interest, namely an elliptical expression. As to the former, Webster did not always thought of the senses of verbs of high frequency as Johnson did. It was revealed in Sections 4.5.6 and 5.1.3 that Webster sometimes separated a bunch of biblical citations supplied in a single sub-entry in Johnson’s Dictionary. Webster practiced in the same way about citations from sources other than the Bible. One example is as follows: J: To RUN. v.n. 11. To be fusible; to melt. Her form glides through me, and my heart gives way; This iron heart, which no impression took From wars, melts down, and runs, if she but look. Dryden. Sussex iron ores run freely in the fire. Woodward. Your iron must not burn in the fire; that is, run or melt; for then it will be brittle. Moxon’s Mech. Exerc.

118 ---------W: RUN, v.i. 14. To be fusible; to melt. Sussex iron ores run freely in the fire. Woodward. W: RUN, v.i. 15. To fuse; to melt. Your iron must not burn in the fire, that is, run or melt, for then it will be brittle. Moxon.

It is seen here that Webster differentiated the sense of “to be fusible” from that of “to fuse”, which had not been Johnson’s practice. As to the latter, Webster’s use of Johnson’s citations for the illustration of an elliptical expression, he seems to have had an interest in this type of expression. Within the range of entries on verbs of high frequency, Webster treated it in 4 sub-entries, ‘BEAR, v.i.2’, ‘GIVE, v.t.12’, ‘RUN, v.i. 12’ and ‘BEAR, v.i. 3’. The treatment of an elliptical expression is unique to Webster, and Johnson did not mention it at all within the corresponding range of entries. The following examples show how Webster made use of Johnson’s citations for the treatment of the expression: J: To BEAR. v.n. 2. To be patient. I cannot, cannot bear, ‘tis past, ‘tis done; Perish this impious, this detested son. Dryden’s Fables. ---------W: BEAR, v.i. 2. To be patient; to endure. I cannot, cannot bear. Dryden. This also seems to be elliptical. J: To RUN. v.n. 9. To stream; to flow. I command, that the conduit run nothing but claret. Shak. Rivers run portable gold. Milton. ---------W: RUN, v.i. 12. To emit; to let flow. I command that the conduit run nothing but claret. Shak. Rivers run portable gold. Milton. But this form of expression is elliptical, with being omitted; “rivers run with portable gold.”

Evidently, Webster was conscious of elliptical expressions which were included among Johnson’s citations but were passed over by Johnson. It can safely be said that the examples observed thus far indicate that Webster never blindly copied or shortened Johnson’s citations, and that he made full use of them based on his unique view of the usage of verbs of high frequency. The following example seems to ensure the point. In this example, it is seen that Webster skilfully combined his invented examples and Johnson’s citation to instruct the usage of the entry-word:

119 J: To GO. v.n. 42. To extend in meaning. His amorous expressions go no further than virtue may allow. Dryden’s Ovid, Preface. ---------W: GO, v.i. 30, 31 and 32. 30. To proceed; to extend. This argument goes far towards proving the point. It goes a great way towards establishing the innocence of the accused. 31. To have effect; to extend in effect; to avail; to be of force or value. Money goes farther now than it did during the war. 32. To extend in meaning or purport. His amorous expressions go no further than virtue may allow. Dryden. [In the last three examples, the sense of go depends on far, farther, further.]

5.1.5 Generalization of the Analysis In entries on verbs of high frequency, both Johnson and Webster supplied an abundance of citations. In view of the nature of these verbs, both lexicographers must have been free to quote from their favourite sources in the entries; in contrast with technical terms and other hard words, no English speaker can avoid using verbs of high frequency. In this situation, Johnson quoted especially frequently from the Bible. However, he rarely made use of biblical citations to illustrate his view of English usage; Johnson quoted from other sources for that purpose. This signifies that Johnson was more a moralist than a grammarian in these entries. Webster also supplied a large number of biblical citations in the entries. Differently from Johnson, however, Webster often made use of them to illustrate various aspects of his view of English usage and grammar. Besides, as seen in the case of entries on words for the letter L, which was observed in Section 4.5.6, Webster shortened most of Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency. These facts show that Webster was less conscious of morality than Johnson when he dealt with these verbs. Concerning citations from sources other than the Bible, Johnson often utilized them to illustrate the usage of relevant words; he did this especially when indicating the prepositions to be used with some verbs. Webster performed in the same way, though he liked supplying his invented examples rather than citations for the purpose. In addition, Webster was also interested in explaining elliptical expressions, which motivated him to make use of some of Johnson’s citations. Webster divided entries on verbs of high frequency more systematically than Johnson, and he skilfully arranged verbal examples in these well-structured entries. This can be regarded as evidence which indicates that Webster almost consistently supplied verbal examples based on his view of the usage of the verbs.

120

5.2

Verbal Examples in Entries on the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency

5.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency

Morton Benson (1986:228), referring to Johnson’s treatment of preterites and past participles of verbs in his Dictionary, has claimed that the technique in the treatment of these words “gradually expanded and refined in succeeding dictionaries during the 18th and 19th centuries”. He, however, did not expound in what way it was to be refined after Johnson. Joseph Reed (1962:99) has said that Webster provided a considerable number of entries on participles in his Dictionary which were not listed in Johnson’s Dictionary, and that Webster defined each of the participles. It is regrettable that Reed has not mentioned what entries on participles Webster added anew to Johnson’s Dictionary and in what way he defined the words. As far as I know, little consideration has been given to the point of how Webster borrowed and modified Johnson’s technique in providing the information on the inflected forms of verbs. In a sense, it may be said that the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the inflected forms of verbs are helpful to obtain general knowledge about how much they were conscious of English grammar in the compilation of their dictionaries. The following table shows how the lexicographers treated the words. Here, the abbreviations ‘Inf.’, pret., pp. and ppr. stand, respectively, for the infinitive, the preterite, the past participle and the present participle, and S and C indicate the number of sub-entries and citations; when the number of S is 1, it means that the relevant entries are not divided into sub-entries.

Table 11: Entries on the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries Inf. bear

break

cast

Entry-words

Johnson S C -----

Webster S C 1 0

bearing, ppr. bore, pret. born, pp. breaking, ppr. broke, pret.

1 1 ---

2 3 ---

1 2 1

0 1 0

---

---

1

0

broken, pp.

1

1

1

0

casting, ppr.

---

---

1

0

Inf.

given, pp.

Johnson S C -----

go

going, ppr. went, pret. gone, pp.

--1 5

--0 9

1 1 6

0 0 2

make

making, ppr. made, pret. and pp. putting, ppr.

---

---

1

0

1

1

1

0

---

---

1

0

put

Entry-words

Webster S C 1 0

121 Table 11: Entries on the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries (continued) Inf. come

fall

get

give

Entry-words

Johnson S C -----

Webster S C 3 1

set

1 1

1 1

1 ---

0 ---

run

falling, ppr. fell, pret. fallen, pp. getting, ppr.. got, pret.

--1 -----

--1 -----

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

1

5

1

0

throw

gotten, pp. giving, ppr.

1 ---

2 ---

1 1

0 0

turn

gave, pret.

1

1

1

0

coming, ppr. came, pret. come, pp.

Inf.

take

Entry-words setting, ppr.

Johnson S C -----

Webster S C 1 0

set, pp. running, ppr. ran, pret. taking, ppr. took, pret. taken, pp.

-----

-----

4 4

0 0

1 --1 1

1 --7 6

1 2 1 1

0 0 1 0

throwing, ppr. thrown, pp. turning, ppr. turned, pp.

1

1

1

0

-----

-----

1 1

0 0

---

---

1

0

This table indicates that Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the inflected forms of verbs are in sharp contrast with each other in two respects. Firstly, while Johnson did not provide any entries on present participles of verbs with the only exception of the entry on throwing, Webster consistently provided them. As for Johnson, he intentionally avoided treating present participles. In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson stated that: The participles are [...] omitted, unless, by signifying rather qualities than action, they take the nature of adjectives; as thinking man, a man of prudence; a pacing horse, a horse that can pace: these I have ventured to call participial adjectives. But neither are these always inserted, because they are commonly to be understood, without any danger of mistake, by consulting the verb. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 36) in the “Preface”])

The ‘participles’ referred to in this passage are naturally regarded as being limited to present participles. When this taken into account, Johnson can be said to have practiced almost exactly as he stated here. That is, Johnson hardly provided entries on present participles. Evidently, Webster did not follow Johnson’s practice in this respect. Incidentally, it was also almost unnecessary for Johnson to provide entries on gerunds or verbal nouns. He stated that: The verbal nouns in ing, such as the keeping of the castle, the leading of the army, are always neglected, or placed only to illustrate the sense of the verb, except when they signify things as well as actions, and have therefore a plural number, as dwelling, living; or have an absolute and abstract signification, as colouring, painting, learning. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 35) in the “Preface”])

122 Secondly, with regard to entries on preterites and past participles of the verbs, Johnson sometimes provided them and sometimes did not; he provided entries on bore, born, broken, came, come (pp.), fell, got, gotten, gave, went, gone, made (pret. and pp.), ran, took and taken, but not on broke, fallen, given, set (pret. and pp.), run (pp.) and thrown. Webster, on the other hand, basically made it a rule to provide entries on all of these words, though he omitted entries on cast (pret.), come (pret.), put (pret. and pp.), set (pret.), run (pp.) and threw probably because of his carelessness. It can be said, therefore, that Webster’s treatment of preterites and past participles of verbs is more consistent than Johnson’s. Since 1747, Johnson had remarked on his treatment of preterites and past participles of verbs. In his Plan of a Dictionary, which had been published before he began to compile his Dictionary, Johnson had stated that: The forms of our verbs are subject to great variety; some end their preter tense in ed [...]. But many depart from this rule, without agreeing in any other, as I shake, I shook, I have shaken, or shook as it is sometimes written in poetry; I make, I made, I have made [...] which as they cannot be reduced to rules, must be learned from the dictionary rather than the grammar. (Johnson 1747:17)

Then, in the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson said how he had treated preterites of verbs: Among other derivatives I have been careful to insert and elucidate the anomalous [...] preterites of verbs, which in the Teutonick dialects are very frequent, and, though familiar to those who have always used them, interrupt and embarrass the learners of our language. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [3rd (par. 21) in the “Preface”])

However, Johnson actually did not provide entries on broke, threw, etc., revealing a contradiction between his statement and practice. Differently from Johnson, Webster did not mention his treatment of preterites and past participles. However, Table 11 indicates that Webster did not simply follow Johnson’s practice and that he treated this type of word based on his unique principle; he treated almost all preterites, as well as past participles, of verbs of high frequency in his Dictionary. Here, it can be tentatively concluded that Webster did not follow Johnson’s practice in his treatment of present participles, preterites and past participles. Thus he greatly improved Johnson’s technique in the treatment of such inflected forms of verbs.

5.2.2 Examples for Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Inflected Forms of Verbs Both Johnson and Webster supplied a relatively small number of citations in entries on the inflected forms of verbs; Table 11 in the previous sub-section indicates that Johnson supplied 42 citations in total in 16 entries and that Webster no more than 5 citations in 35 entries. It is, therefore, almost meaningless to produce a table of their selection of sources of citations here. From what sources they took citations will be revealed through the analysis of relevant entries which I will make below.

123 In Johnson’s case, he often provided entries merely to show the existence of inflected forms of verbs. On this occasion, Johnson sometimes supplied citations without a definition and a usage note. Examples are: J: BORE. The preterite of bear. The father bore it with undaunted soul, Like one who durst his destiny controul; Yet with becoming grief he bore his part, Resign’d his son, but not resign’d his heart. Dryden. ‘Twas my fate To kill my father, and pollute his bed, By marrying her who bore me. Dryden and Lee’s OEdipus. J: BROKEN. [particip. pass. of break.] Preserve men’s wits from being broken with the very bent of so long attention. Hooker. J: CAME. The preterite of to come. Till all the pack came up, and ev’ry hound Tore the sad huntsman, grov’ling on the ground. Addison. J: COME. [participle of the verb.] Thy words were heard, and I am come to thy words. Dan.

This was Johnson’s usual practice in entries on the inflected forms of verbs which were not divided into sub-entries; he performed in this way in 14 entries out of 16. Incidentally, Johnson treated went as follows in its relevant entry: J: WENT. pret. See WEND and GO.

This is the whole of the contents of the entry; he neither gave a definition nor supplied a citation in this entry. As to Webster, he treated some inflected forms of verbs as Johnson did in the entry on went in his Dictionary. That is, Webster sometimes did nothing more than suggest that readers refer to entries on the infinitives there. He basically did not supply a verbal example in such a case. The following are examples: W: BORE, pret. of bear. [See Bear.] W: BROKE, pret. and pp. of break. W: CAME, pret. of come, which see.

In 9 entries out of 35 on the inflected forms of verbs, Webster only indicated their infinitives; similar examples are seen in entries on fell, gave, got, gotten, made (pret. and pp.) and threw. In this regard, Joseph Reed’s remarks referred to at the beginning of Section 5.2.1, that Webster defined each of participles, is not sufficiently convincing. Webster, however, gave brief definitions in entries on broken, fallen, given, ran, taken, thrown and turned (pp.) as follows:

124 W: BROKEN, pp. of break. Parted by violence; rent asunder; infirm; made bankrupt. W: FALLEN, pp. or a. Dropped; descended; degraded; decreased; ruined. W: GIVEN, pp. Bestowed; granted; conferred; imparted; admitted or supposed.

In entries on got and went, Webster provided etymological information in brief: W: GOT, pret. of get. The old preterit gat, pronounced got, is nearly obsolete. W: WENT, pret. of the obsolete verb wend. We now arrange went in grammar as the preterit of go, but in origin it has no connection with it.

It was rare for Webster to supply citations without definitions in entries on inflected forms of verbs, which Johnson often did as already observed. Webster did this only once in the entry on took: W: TOOK, pret. of take. Enoch was not, for God took him. Gen. v.

Johnson divided only one entry into sub-entries within the range of entries indicated in Table 11. It is the entry on gone. In this entry, Johnson supplied a citation from Addison at the beginning, and provided five sub-entries after that, giving a synonymous definition with one or two citations in each of them. The following is the whole of the contents of the entry: J: GONE. part. preter. [from go. See To GO.] 1-5. As, I need not qualify these remarks with a supposition that I have gone upon through the whole course of my papers. Addis. 1. Advanced; forward in progress. I have known sheep cured of the rot, when they have not been far gone with it, only by being put into broomlands. Mort. The observator is much the brisker of the two, and, I think, farther gone of late in lyes and impudence than his Presbyterian brother. Swift. 2. Ruined; undone. He must know ‘tis none of your daughter, nor my sister; we are gone else. Shakespeare’s Winter’s Tale. 3. Past. I’ll tell the story of my life, And the particular accidents gone by, Since I came to this isle. Shakespeare’s Tempest. 4. Lost; departed. When her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas. Acts xvi. 19.

125 Speech is confined to the living, and imparted to only those that are in presence, and is transient and gone. Holder. 5. Dead; departed from life. I mourn Adonis dead and gone. Oldham. A dog, that has his nose held in the vapour, loses all signs of life; but carried into the air, or thrown into a lake, recovers, if not quite gone. Addison’s Remarks on Italy.

Webster also divided the entry on gone into sub-entries. However, he did this from a perspective quite different from Johnson’s. The following is the entry on gone in Webster’s Dictionary: W: GONE, pp. of go; pronounced nearly gawn.: 1-6 1. Departed. It was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath. 1 Kings ii. 2. Advanced; forward in progress; with far, farther, or further; as a man far gone in intemperance. 3. Ruined; undone. Exert yourselves, or we are gone. 4. Past; as, these happy days are gone; sometimes with by. Those times are gone by. 5. Lost. When her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone --- Acts. xvi. 6. Departed from life; deceased; dead.

When the entry on gone in Webster’s Dictionary is compared with that in Johnson’s, it becomes clear that Webster was conscious of the usage of gone, while Johnson focused his attention on the senses of the word. Webster commented on the combination of gone and the words far, farther, further and by. Besides, Webster’s verbal examples here include the expressions had gone, are gone and was gone. This can be regarded as the reflection of Webster’s consciousness of grammatical tenses. Lastly, Webster provided entries on present participles, which are almost peculiar to Webster’s Dictionary, basically as shown below: W: BEARING, ppr. Supporting; carrying; producing. W: BREAKING, ppr. Parting by violence; rending asunder; becoming bankrupt. W: CASTING, ppr. Throwing; sending; computing; calculating; turning; giving a preponderancy; deciding; running, or throwing into a mold to give shape. [See Cast.]

It is observed here that Webster gave synonymous definitions in these entries. He, however, occasionally supplied citations and invented verbal examples in entries on this type of word as follows: W: COMING, ppr.: 1-3 1. Drawing nearer or nigh; approaching; moving towards; advancing. 2. a. Future; yet to come; as, in coming ages.

126 3. Forward; ready to come. How coming to the poet every muse. Pope. [The latter sense is now unusual.]

5.2.3 Generalization of the Analysis With regard to the information on the inflected forms of verbs, Johnson’s contribution to the development of English lexicography is almost limited to the provision of relevant entries. In many cases, Johnson neither provided a usage note nor gave a definition in the entries. In this situation, citations, which were occasionally supplied in the entries, do not seem to function well to illustrate the senses and usage of their relevant entry-words. Additionally, he often is observed to have forgotten to provide some relevant entries; though he said he had been careful to provide entries on preterites of irregular verbs, there are no entries on such words as broke and threw in his Dictionary. He also rarely provided entries on present participles. In a word, Johnson’s lexicographical technique to show the information on the inflected forms of verbs is quite primitive. In contrast to this, Webster provided relevant entries far more generously than Johnson. Besides, though not so often, Webster provided usage notes in some entries. He also supplied verbal examples in a more effective way than Johnson for the indication of the usage of relevant words. It can now safely be said that Webster, referring to Johnson’s Dictionary, opened a new horizon of lexicographic principle in terms of showing the information on the inflected forms of verbs.

6:

Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions and Prepositional Adverbs

6.1

Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions

6.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Prepositions Prepositions belong to the category of function words. As Randolph Quirk et al. (1985:72) have claimed, the senses of function words are less easy to state than to define them in relation to other types of words. For this reason, function words are often called grammatical words or structure words. Then, among other function words, as Quirk et al. (1985:657) have also claimed, “a preposition expresses a relation between two entities, one being that represented by the prepositional complement, the other by another part of the sentence”. Because of this characteristic of prepositions, most modern English lexicographers do not treat the words as they treat other types of words. Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of prepositions is accordingly thought to be different from that of verbs which was analysed in the previous chapter. The following table shows how Johnson and Webster treated prepositions in general. In this table, the letters S and C indicate the number of sub-entries and citations, respectively.

Table 12: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries Johnson Entrywords about after at before below by down from for in

S

Webster

Johnson

C

S

C

6 6 17 12 4 25

16 7 39 14 3 70

7 6 1 11 4 14

7 5 --11 -----

2 21 34 8

3 38 137 18

2 1 29 1

----28 ---

Entrywords into of off on over throug h to upon with -----

Webster

S

C

S

C

3 23 2 20 7 4

15 60 2 28 15 12

6 1 2 14 8 6

--7 --3 6 8

24 21 18 ---

68 50 23 ---

28 20 15 ---

11 1 7 ---

This table reveals that Johnson divided 10 entries out of 19 into more sub-entries than Webster: at, before, by, from, for, in, of, on, upon and with. As for Webster, on the other hand, he divided 5 entries into more sub-entries than Johnson: about, into, over, through and to. With regard to the remaining 4 entries on after, below, down and off, the number of their sub-entries in Johnson’s Dictionary and that in Webster’s are identical. This

128 situation may give the impression that in most cases Johnson treated prepositions in more detail than Webster. However, it is to be noted that Webster did not treat all prepositions in a consistent way. For instance, as the table above shows, Webster did not divide entries on at, from, in and of, while Johnson divided their corresponding entries into 17, 21, 8 and 23 sub-entries in this order. This, however, does not mean that Webster made light of the relevant prepositions. In these entries, Webster gave a fairly detailed account of the prepositions. The entries on at, from and in in Webster’s Dictionary are composed of 55, 74 and 61 lines, respectively; as to the entry on of, it is composed of as many as 115 lines. This situation clearly indicates that Webster’s treatment of prepositions is considerably different from Johnson’s, details of which will be discussed later in this sub-section. In respect of the number of citations, Table 12 shows that Johnson allocated 618 citations in total in 19 entries on prepositions; that is, he allocated 32.5 citations on average per entry. As confirmed in Section 5.1.1, Johnson allocated 53.4 citations on average per entry in the case of verbs of high frequency. It can be said, therefore, that Johnson allocated a relatively small number of citations in entries on prepositions. The same is true of Webster. He allocated 8.0 citations on average per entry within the range of entries on verbs of high frequency, which was analysed in Section 5.1.1, but he allocated 5.0 citations on average per entry in the case of prepositions. Concerning the principles of their treatment of prepositions, neither Johnson nor Webster expounded on them in the prefaces to their dictionaries. Johnson, however, referred to his treatment of particles from a broad perspective. He stated: The particles are among all nations applied with so great latitude, that they are not easily reducible under any regular scheme of explication: this difficulty is not less, nor perhaps greater, in English, than in other languages. I have laboured them with diligence, I hope with success; such at least as can be expected in a task, which no man, however learned or sagacious, has yet been able to perform. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 46) in the “Preface”])

Howard Weinbrot (1972:88), quoting the first half of this statement, has pointed out Johnson’s suffering caused by this type of word which “do not admit of easy definition”. However, it should not be passed over that the latter half of the same statement reveals Johnson’s confidence and pride in the treatment of such words. This is in stark contrast to his statement on the treatment of verbs of high frequency. As clarified in Section 5.1.1, Johnson was unable to surmount the difficulties he had encountered in treating verbs of high frequency, and he had to make an excuse for this to the readers of his Dictionary. Such distress cannot be detected at all in the statement above. The senses of prepositions are by far more indeterminable than those of verbs of high frequency. Therefore, Johnson’s confidence in the treatment of prepositions which was expressed in spite of this situation implies that he treated the words in a different way from the one he adopted in the treatment of verbs of high frequency. What grammatical view, then, did Johnson and Webster have about prepositions? Johnson, though referring little to prepositions in the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary, provided an entry on preposition in its body. It reads as follows: J: PREPOSITION. n.s. In grammar, a particle governing a case.

129 A preposition signifies some relation, which the thing signified by the word following it, has to something going before in the discourse; as, Cesar came to Rome. Clarke’s Lat. Gram.

It is significant here that Johnson quoted a sentence from a grammar of Latin to illustrate his view of prepositions in English. It was generally emphasized among eighteenth-century grammarians that prepositions should be placed before the words or phrases governed by them. This view was taken from Latin grammar, which was elucidated by Sterling Leonard (1962:95, 98, 154, 184 and 189-190). Lowth also had this to say: PREPOSITIONS, so called because they are commonly put before the words to which they are applied [...]. (Lowth 1762:91)

In this respect, Webster was basically in line with Johnson, though he did not refer to Latin grammar. Webster’s explanation of prepositions is more detailed than Johnson’s. In the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary, Webster stated that: Prepositions, so called from their being put before other words, serve to connect words and show the relation between them, or to show the condition of things. Thus a man of benevolence, denotes a man who possesses benevolence. Christ was crucified between two thieves. Receive the book from John and give it to Thomas. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [17th in the “Grammar”])

Though this does not closely concern the present topic, Webster uniquely claimed that some prefixes should be included in the category of prepositions. He, terming them ‘inseparable prepositions’, stated: We have a number of particles, which serve to vary or modify the words to which they are prefixed, and which are sometimes called inseparable prepositions, because they are never used, but as parts of other words. Such are a, be, con, mis, pre, re, sub, in abide, become, conjoin, mistake, prefix, return, subjoin, &c. These may be called prefixes. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [17th in the “Grammar”])

According to Yoshihiko Ikegami (1971:47), Webster stuck to this view throughout his life as a grammarian. However, the similarity in their opinions about the position where prepositions should be placed does not mean that Johnson and Webster treated the words identically. As I pointed out earlier in this sub-section, there is a notable difference between Johnson and Webster in their formulation of the structures of entries on prepositions. For instance, Johnson divided the entry on of into 23 sub-entries and allocated 60 citations in them. In some of these subentries, Johnson did nothing more than giving synonymous definitions of the preposition, as the following skeleton of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth sub-entries on the word indicates: 3. From. 4. Concerning; relating to. 5. Out of. 6. Among. 8. According to.

130 However, some sub-entries are exclusively provided to show the usage of the word with citations selected genuinely for the purpose. In this case, Johnson’s invented examples are occasionally supplied in them, as well. The examples of such sub-entries are as follows: J: OF. prep. 1. It is put before the substantive that follows another in construction; as, of these part were slain; that is, part of these. I cannot instantly raise up the gross Of full three thousand ducats. Shakespeare. He to his natural endowments of a large invention, a ripe judgment, and a strong memory, has joined the knowledge of the liberal arts. Dryden. All men naturally fly to God in extremity, and the most atheistical person in the world, when forsaken of all hopes of any other relief, is forced to acknowledge him. Tillotson. They will receive it at last with an ample accumulation of interest. Smallridge’s Serm. Since the rousing of the mind with some degrees of vigour, does set it free from those idle companions. Locke. The value of land is raised only by a greater plenty of money. Locke. J: OF. prep. 2. It is put after comparative and superlative adjectives. The most renowned of all are those to whom the name is given Philippinae. Abbot’s Descript. of the World. We profess to be animated with the best hopes of any men in the world. Tillotson’s Serm. At midnight, the most dismal and unseasonable time of all other, then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. Tillotson, Serm. 31. We are not to describe our shepherds as shepherds at this day really are, but as they may be conceived then to have been, when the best of men followed the employment. Pope. Peace, of all worldly blessings, is the most valuable. Small.

There is not the slightest doubt that the verbal examples in these sub-entries are supplied based on Johnson’s view of prepositional usage. Then, 14 sub-entries out of 23 in the entry on of are provided for the indication of what is to be termed the semantic concepts of the prepositions. It is seen here that Johnson treated the preposition as a kind of semanticist. All definitions in the 14 sub-entries begin with the word ‘noting’, signifying that they are essentially different from synonymous ones. The following are examples: 9. Noting power, ability, choice, or spontaneity. With the reciprocal pronoun. 10. Noting properties or qualities. 11. Noting extraction. 12. Noting adherence, or belonging. 13. Noting the matter of any thing.

Giving definitions in this way, Johnson was also conscious of the usage of the preposition as his note “With reciprocal pronoun” in the ninth sub-entry above indicates. In this subentry, he supplied 9 citations to illustrate the usage. The first 3 citations out of the 9 are as follows:

131 Some soils put forth odorate herbs of themselves; as wild thyme. Bacon’s Nat. Hist. Of himself man is confessedly unequal to his duty. Steph. The Venice glasses would crack of themselves. Boyle.

As for Webster, he supplied 7 citations and 31 invented examples in the entry on of in his Dictionary. His explanation of the usage of the word is far more detailed than Johnson’s. As confirmed earlier, Webster did not divide this entry into sub-entries, but it is longer than the entry on on which is composed of 14 sub-entries. In this entry on of, what Webster did first was giving the definitions of the preposition: “From or out of; proceeding from, as the cause, source, means, author or agent bestowing”. Then, he supplied the following 6 biblical citations in succession, which is quite unusual for him; he did this neither in entries on words for the letter L nor in those on verbs of high frequency: I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you. 1 Cor. xi. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts. Josh. xi. It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed. Lam. iii. The whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. Prov. xvi. Go, inquire of the Lord for me. 2 Chron. xxxiv. That holy thing that shall be born of thee. Luke. i.

And under these biblical citations, Webster explained the primary sense of of in brief: Hence of is the sign of the genitive case, the case that denotes production; as the son of man, the son proceeding from man, produced from man. This is the primary sense, although we now say, produced by man.

After this, Webster entered into the details of the entry-word, using 57 lines; there, he supplied his invented examples, sometimes even paraphrasing them, as shown below: “Part of these were slain;” that is, a number separate, for part denotes a division; the sense then is, a number from or out of the whole were slain. So also, “some of these were slain;” that is, some from or out of the others. “I have known him of old, or of a child;” that is, from old times, from a child. “He is of the race of kings;” that is, descended from kings. “He is of noble blood or birth, or of ignoble origin.” “No particle of matter, or no body can move of itself;” that is, by force or strength proceeding from itself, derived from itself.

At the end of these verbal examples, a citation from Franklin is supplied to illustrate a sense of the preposition: Of sometimes implies a part or share. It is a duty to communicate of those blessings we have received. Franklin.

And Webster concluded the entry with long remarks of thirty lines, comparing of with other prepositions: From is then the primary sense of this preposition; a sense retained in off, the same word differently written for distinction. But this sense is appropriately lost in many of its applications [...]. That which proceeds from or is produced by a person, is naturally the property or possession

132 of that person [...] and this idea of property in the course of time would pass to things not thus produced, but still bearing a relation to another thing. [...] In both senses, other languages also use the same word, as in the French de, de la, and Italian di, dell. Of then has one primary sense, from, departing, issuing, proceeding from or out of, and a derivative sense denoting possession or property.

This is the structure of the entry on of in Webster’s Dictionary which is not divided into sub-entries and consists of 115 lines. In terms of verbal examples, this entry includes 6 biblical passages as authoritative citations, 31 invented phrases and sentences and 1 citation from Franklin. Besides, in the entry on of in his Dictionary, Webster also referred to prepositions other than of to make its senses and usage clear. A similar practice can be observed in the entry on from which Webster did not divide into sub-entries, either. In Johnson’s case, he indicated the usage of the preposition from in one of the sub-entries on the word: J: FROM. prep. 6. With to following; noting succession. These motions we must examine from first to last, to find out what was the form of the earth. Burn. Theo. of the Earth. He bid her from time to time be comforted. Addis. Spectat.

Concerning other sub-entries, Johnson generally indicated the semantic concepts of the preposition, using the word ‘noting’. The following are some examples of them: 2. Noting reception. 3. Noting procession, descent, or birth. 4. Noting transmission. 5. Noting abstraction; vacation from. 8. Noting progress from premisses to inferences

Webster, on the other hand, firstly gave his account of the preposition by supplying many invented examples in the corresponding entry in his Dictionary. It begins as follows: The sense of from may be expressed by the noun distance, or by the adjective distant, or by the participles, departing, removing to a distance. Thus it is one hundred miles from Boston to Hartford. He took his sword from his side. Light proceeds from the sun. Water issues from the earth in springs. Separate the coarse wool from the fine. Men have all sprung from Adam. Men often go from good to bad, and from bad to worse.

The fact that Webster did not divide the entry on from into sub-entries is seemingly relevant to Tooke’s view of the word. As I stated in Section 1.5.4, Tooke wrote a book the Diversions of Purley (1786-1805), an approach to language and grammar which made his reputation at his time. It has been widely acknowledged that Webster was greatly influenced by Tooke’s view of English grammar. Allen Read, for instance, has claimed that:

133 He [Webster] had been alert to the advances made in his time. The greatest step forward had been in a book that now seems incredibly out of date – John Horne Tooke’s The Diversions of Purley. Webster made much use of it [...]. (Read 1967:163)

Tooke thought that the preposition from had only one sense. Therefore, it seems quite natural to ascribe the fact that Webster did not divide the entry on the word to Tooke’s view of it. Actually, however, Webster did not follow Tooke in his treatment of the preposition. To be concrete, as Hans Aarsleff (1967:55-56) clarified, Tooke (1798:342) thought that “FROM means merely BEGINNING, and nothing else”. This view contradicts Webster’s explanation of the preposition above in which he stated that from denoted ‘distance’; besides, he never referred to the relation between from and the sense of ‘beginning’ in the entry. In this sense, the entry on from in Webster’s Dictionary indicates that he did not accept the whole of Tooke’s view of English usage. There are 2 other entries on prepositions which Webster did not divide into sub-entries; they are the entries on in and at. The first passage in the entry on in in Webster’s Dictionary is as follows: In denotes present or inclosed, surrounded by limits; as in a house; in a fort; in a city. It denotes a state of being mixed, as sugar in tea; or combined, as carbonic acid in coal, or latent heat in air. It denotes present in any state; as in sickness or health. It denotes present in time; as in that hour or day.

Under these remarks, Webster mentioned the relations between in and other prepositions, concluding thus: “in reason is equivalent to with reason; one in ten denotes one of that number, and we say also one of ten, and one out of ten”. Webster treated the preposition at in its relevant entry almost in the same way as he treated in. The contents of the entries on in and at, as well as those on of and from, clearly indicate that Webster treated prepositions in detail even in the entries which are not divided into sub-entries.

6.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions As already analysed in the sub-section above, Johnson allocated 618 citations in total in 19 entries on prepositions. The sources of the citations are shown in the table below. This table reveals significant tendencies which are not observable in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency in his Dictionary.

Table 13: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary Sources Dryden Shakespeare

Freq. 114 89

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Bible

6

Newton

2

Ray

1

Sidney

5

Hubbard

2

Phillips

1

134 Table 13: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary (continued) Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Locke

39

Cowley

5

Hayward

2

Otway

1

Bacon

35

Woodward

4

Grew

2

N. Fest

1

Addison

32

Taylor

4

Garth

2

Swift

26

Stillingfleet

4

Donne

2

Hudibras

1

Tillotson

22

Rowe

4

Broome

2

Graunt

1

Pope

21

Felton

4

Atterbury

2

Gay

1

Milton

16

Denham

4

Ascham

2

Garretson

1

Letter to Pable of Dunciad

1

Boyle

14

Smith

3

Wotton

1

Fairfax

1

Hooker

10

Sandys

3

Wisemann

1

Dennis

1

L’Estrange

3

Whitgift

1

Allestree

1

South

9

Knolles

9

Hammond

3

Watts

1

Davies

1

Clarendon

9

Hale

3

Tusser

1

Calamy

1

Arbuthnot

9

Daniel

3

Tatler

1

Buckhurst

1

Smallridge

8

Collier

3

Tate

1

Brown

1

Waller

7

Cheyne

3

Suckling

1

Blackmore

1

Prior

7

Bentley

3

Stephens

1

Ayliffe

1

Ben Jonson

7

Spenser

2

Sprat

1

Advert to Pope’s Dunciad

1

Temple

6

Spectator

2

Rymer

1

Abbot

Burnet

6

Raleigh

2

Roscommon

1

-----

1 ---

Johnson’s practice of supplying citations in entries on prepositions is significant in two respects. Firstly, Johnson hardly quoted from the Bible in these entries. As clarified in Section 5.1.1, Johnson quoted from the Bible in first-order frequency in entries on verbs of high frequency; biblical citations within this range account for 16.6%, or 249 citations out of 1,496. Additionally, it was found in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.5.2 that he quoted from the Bible in third-order frequency in entries on words for the letter L; 270 citations out of 4,047, or 6.7% within this range, are taken from the Bible. In this way, in entries on verbs of high frequency and those on words for the letter L, Johnson quoted quite frequently from the Bible. Such a situation may seem to justify a widely accepted perspective that Johnson was consistently a moralist in his selection of sources of citations (see Section 4.5.1). As far as entries on prepositions are concerned, however, the table above manifests that Johnson hardly quoted from the Bible; the biblical citations here account for less than 1.0%, precisely 0.97%, or merely 6 citations out of 618.

135 Secondly, Johnson quoted from Dryden in first-order frequency here; citations from Dryden within the range of entries on prepositions account for 18.4%, nineteen times as many as biblical citations. The disparity between the number of citations from Dryden and that from Shakespeare, the source from which Johnson quoted in second-order frequency, is 25; citations from Shakespeare account for 14.4% within the same range. This disparity is never small when the situations in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency are taken into account. As the analysis in Section 4.1.1 revealed, Johnson quoted most often from Shakespeare in entries on words for the letter L; citations from Shakespeare account for 15.8%, or 640, and those from Dryden 11.9%, or 480, there. In entries on verbs of high frequency, on which analyses were made in Section 5.1.2, the percentages of citations from the two sources are almost the same; citations from Shakespeare account for 11.0%, or 165, and those from Dryden 12.2%, or 183. When these situations are taken into account, it can safely be said that Johnson intentionally quoted especially frequently from Dryden in entries on prepositions. In Webster’s case, he supplied 94 citations in entries on prepositions from the sources indicated in the following table.

Table 14: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary Sources

Freq.

Sources

Bible

43

Dryden

11

Temple

6

Taylor

Shakespeare

Waller

Freq. 1

Sources

Freq.

Sources Dennis

Freq.

Richardson

1

1

1

Quart. Rev.

1

Denham

1

1

Philips

1

Clarendon

1

Bacon

4

Swift

1

Marshall

1

Cheyne

1

Tillotson

2

Spenser

1

Locke

1

Burnet

1

Pope

2

Spectator

1

Hooker

1

Boyle

Ben Jonson

2

Smalridge

1

Hale

1

-----

---

Addison

2

Rymer

1

Franklin

1

-----

---

1

On the one hand, Webster’s selection of sources revealed in this table partially reflects Johnson’s practice. That is, he quoted from Dryden more frequently than from Shakespeare. On the other hand, quite differently from Johnson, Webster supplied an abundance of biblical citations in entries on prepositions. They account for 45.7% of all Webster’s citations within this range. In entries on words for the letter L and those on verbs of high frequency in Webster’s Dictionary, biblical citations account for 28.8% for the former and 32.6% for the latter. Additionally, Webster quoted far less frequently from the Bible than Johnson in these two types of entries. In entries on prepositions, however, Webster’s biblical citations greatly outnumber Johnson’s; this naturally means that Webster borrowed quite a small number of biblical citations from Johnson within this range. In this way, the analyses above show that entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary are characterized by citations from Dryden, and those in Webster’s Dictionary by biblical citations. In accordance with these characteristics, I will separately investigate Johnson’s

136 and Webster’s practice in supplying their citations in entries on prepositions; I will investigate Johnson’s in Section 6.1.3 and Webster’s in Sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.5.

6.1.3 Johnson’s Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions The table below shows the distribution of Johnson’s citations from Dryden in entries on prepositions. The letter S here means sub-entries. The figures under D-1 indicate the number of sub-entries in which Johnson supplied citations from Dryden together with those from other sources, and those under D-2 the number of sub-entries in which he exclusively supplied citations from Dryden.

Table 15: Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary Entrywords about after at before below by down

S

D-1

D-2

6 6 17 12 4 25 2

2 1 6 6 1 7 0

----3 2 1 1 ---

Entrywords from for in into of off on

S

D-1

D-2

21 34 8 3 23 2 20

9 16 1 1 9 1 11

3 5 ----3 --7

Entrywords over through to upon with ---------

S

D-1

D-2

7 4 24 21 18 -----

3 3 10 3 5 -----

----4 2 2 -----

This table shows that Johnson quoted from Dryden in 95 sub-entries out of 257 on prepositions, and that in 33 sub-entries out of the 95 he quoted exclusively from Dryden. Citations from Dryden are thus widely dispersed within this range. How, then, did Johnson make use of the citations in these two types of sub-entries? There are three answers to this question; he used them to illustrate prepositional usage, to clarify the semantic concepts of prepositions and to illustrate the synonymous definitions of prepositions. I will discuss each of the uses below, referring to the contents of entries where he exclusively supplied citations from Dryden. Firstly, it is found that Johnson often made full use of citations from Dryden in expressing his view of prepositional usage. Examples are: J: ON. prep. 2. It is put before any thing that is the subject of action. Th’ unhappy husband, husband now no more, Did on his tuneful harp his loss deplore. Dryden. J: ON. prep. 12. In forms of denunciation it is put before the thing threatned. Hence on thy life; the captive maid is mine, Whom not for price or pray’rs I will resign. Dryden.

137 In many of sub-entries where he provided such usage notes, Johnson exclusively supplied citations from Dryden. Secondly, in the following sub-entries Johnson quoted exclusively from Dryden to indicate the semantic concepts of prepositions, using the word “noting” frequently: J: FROM. prep. 12. Out of. Noting the ground or cause of any thing. They who believe that the praises which arise from valour are superiour to those which proceed from any other virtues, have not considered. Dryden’s Virg. AEn. Dedication. What entertainment can be raised from so pitiful a machine? We see the success of the battle from the very beginning. Dryd. ‘Tis true from force the strongest titles spring. Dryden. J: OF. prep. 14. Noting the motive. It was not of my own choice that I undertook this work. Dryden’s Dufresnoy. Our sov’reign Lord has ponder’d in his mind The means to spare the blood of gentle kind; And of his grace and inborn clemency, He modifies his severe decree. Dryden.

Such a practice of Johnson’s can be frequently observed in sub-entries on prepositions. Other examples are observed in such sub-entries as ‘ON. prep. 3.’, “Noting addition or accumulation”; ‘ON. prep. 4.’, “Noting a state of progression”; ‘ON. prep. 14.’, “Noting invocation”; ‘ON. prep. 16.’, “Noting stipulation or condition”; ‘TO. prep. 7.’, “Noting opposition”; ‘TO. preposition. 11.’, “Noting perception”; ‘TO. preposition. 16.’, “Noting obligation”; ‘UPON. prep. 19.’, “Noting particular pace”; ‘WITH. prep. 2.’, “Noting the means”; and ‘WITH. prep. 13.’, “Noting connection”. In the sub-entries mentioned here, Johnson exclusively supplied citations from Dryden. Thirdly, to illustrate the synonymous definitions of prepositions, Johnson occasionally quoted only from Dryden as the following examples show: J: BEFORE. prep. 9. Preceding in time. Particular advantages it has before all the books which have appeared before it in this kind. Dryden’s Dufresnoy. J: TO. preposition. 19. Towards. She stretch’d her arms to heav’n. Dryden.

In the examples above, Johnson indicated that before had a sense of “Preceding in time” and that to could be used as a synonym of towards. These are thought to have been matters of common knowledge among English speaking people at Johnson’s time, and he must have seen innumerable phrases and sentences of other authors in which the two prepositions were used in such senses. Actually, however, Johnson singled out the sentences from Dryden to illustrate the senses of the words. There are 9 other examples of sub-entries in which Johnson gave synonymous definitions of prepositions, quoting solely from Dryden:

138 ‘BEFORE. prep. 1’, “Farther onward in place”; ‘BELOW. prep. 4’, “Unworthy of; unbefitting”; ‘FOR. prep. 10’, “In comparative respect”; ‘FOR. prep. 21.’, “In exchange for”; ‘FOR. prep. 23.’, “In supply of; to serve in the place of”; ‘FOR. prep. 37.’, “In consequence of”; ‘FOR. prep. 38’, “In recompense of”; ‘OF. prep. 5’, “Out of”; and ‘UPON. prep. 10.’, “With respect to”. Johnson used citations from Dryden mainly in three ways as analysed above. And it can be said that the analysis strengthens the probability that Johnson was especially conscious of Dryden’s phrases and sentences in his treatment of prepositions. The probability can also be supported by another fact. In the entries on at and on, Johnson provided some subentries to show the usage of the prepositions which he seems to have thought almost peculiar to certain authors, namely, Dryden, Sir Matthew Hale, Shakespeare and Swift. In order to show Hale’s, Shakespeare’s and Swift’s usage of the prepositions, Johnson provided only one sub-entry for each of the authors; he also quoted only once each from them. For instance, Johnson explained Hale’s usage of at in this way: J: AT. prep. 10. At sometimes signifies in consequence of. Impeachments at the prosecution of the house of commons, have received their determinations in the house of lords. Hale.

Concerning Dryden’s usage of the prepositions, however, Johnson provided 4 sub-entries and supplied 5 citations: J: AT. prep. 13. At sometimes marks the occasion, like on. Others, with more helpful care, Cry’d out aloud, Beware, brave youth, beware. At this he turn’d, and, as the bull drew near, Shunn’d, and receiv’d him on his pointed spear. Dryden. J: AT. prep. 14. At sometimes seems to signify in the power of, or obedient to But thou of all the kings, Jove’s care below, Art least at my command, and most my foe. Dryd. Iliad. J: AT. prep. 16. At sometimes imports the manner of an action. One warms you by degrees, the other sets you on fire all at once, and never intermits his heat. Dryden’s Fables, Pref. Not with less ruin than the Bajan mole, At once comes tumbling down. Dryden’s AEneid. J: ON. prep. 5. It sometimes notes elevation. Chuse next a province for thy vineyard’s reign, On hills above, or in the lowly plain. Dryden.

139 Incidentally, the citations from Dryden here include the phrases at once and all at once. According to the OED, the former began to be used as an idiom around 1200, and the latter around 1300. Johnson, however, did not regard them as idioms, and solely tried to explain the usage of at. Thus, it becomes evident that Johnson was strongly conscious of Dryden’s phrases and sentences in his treatment of prepositions. What could have been the reasons for this? It has generally been acknowledged among authorities of Johnson that he frequently quoted from Dryden in his Dictionary. Mildred Struble (1933:130), for instance, has pointed out that “The name of Dryden is said to occur on every page” in Johnson’s Dictionary. William Wimsatt (1941:86) thought about the reason from a literary viewpoint: “Dryden’s genius, his learning, his prose style, his refinement of the language, offers some good examples of Johnson’s essay style”. Rackstraw Downes was basically in line with Wimsatt when he claimed that: Shakespeare is sometimes obscure because of that ‘fullness of idea which might sometimes load his words with more sentiment than they could conveniently carry’; then Cowley, like Shakespeare, is found guilty of a careless use of low terms and colloquial diction, and to be ignorant of the ‘nice discriminations’ of level first introduced by Dryden, ‘those happy combinations of words which distinguish poetry from prose,’ called poetic diction. (At this point it becomes clear why Dryden, rather than the announced Spenser and Sidney, is the poet of the Dictionary.) (Downes 1962:40)

As far as I can judge, however, little attention has been paid to the relations between Johnson’s view of prepositional usage and his citations from Dryden. When the fact is taken into account that Johnson was especially conscious of Dryden in treating prepositions, such a climate among authorities seems quite strange. In order to know the relations, then, it becomes inevitable here to make observations on Dryden’s usage of prepositions. In the latter half of the seventeenth century, when men of letters became seriously concerned about changes in the language, Dryden was an author who was especially careful about prepositional usage. This can be proved by his revision of Essay on Dramatic Poesy. Dryden published the first edition of this work in 1668, which allowed him to hold an established position as a literary critic. It was in 1684 when he published the second edition of the work, sixteen years after the first edition. There are few differences between the first edition and the second in terms of contents. What motivated Dryden to revise the work was the change in his view of prepositional usage. In the first edition of his Dramatic Poesy, Dryden had often placed prepositions at the end of phrases and clauses, all of which he eliminated in its second edition. This means that Dryden’s view of prepositional usage had drastically changed by the year 1684. Concerning this change, Janet Bately and Irène Simon made significant analyses, respectively. Bately analysed how Dryden eliminated prepositions at the ends of phrases and clauses, or ‘terminal prepositions’ in her term. Part of her analysis is worthy of quotation here in order to appreciate Dryden’s view of prepositional usage in and after 1684. She has claimed as follows, showing some concrete examples of Dryden’s ‘correction’ which was made in the second edition of Dramatic Poesy: When the clause is introduced by a relative pronoun, the alteration is usually a simple one, the 1684 edition removing the offending word from end-position and placing it before the relative pronoun (1668, p. 18 ‘whom all the Story is built upon’; 1684, p. 13 ‘on whom all the Story is

140 built’ [...]). In one instance, however, the ‘preposition’ is removed altogether by substitution of a transitive for an intransitive verb (1668, p. 65 ‘which they have not blown upon’; 1684, p. 45 ‘which they have not us’d’). When the relative word is not a pronoun, then either the intransitive verb is replaced by a transitive one (1668, p. 41 ‘a much higher degree [...] then the French Poets can arrive at’; 1684, p. 29 ‘than the French Poets can, reasonably, hope to reach’), or that word is deprived of its relative function, thus allowing the introduction of a relative pronoun regimen for the ‘preposition’ (1668, A2v ‘such Arguments [...] as the fourth Act of Pompey will furnish me with’; 1684, A2v ‘as those with which [...] furnish me’). If there is no relative word expressed, the contact clause is either replaced by a clause with relative pronoun and the ‘preposition’ moved to the head (1668, p. 3. ‘people you speak of’; 1684, p. 2 ‘people of whom you speak [...]’) or retained with change of verb and consequent removal of the offending ‘preposition’ (1668, p. 33 ‘all the Actor can perswade us to’; 1684, p. 23 ‘can insinuate into us’). (Bately 1964:269-270)

Based on such an analysis, Bately (1964:276) has claimed that Dryden eliminated ‘terminal prepositions’ not for literary reasons but for grammatical reasons. In this regard, Simon (1963:132-133) thought in the same way, saying that “Most of the changes [in Dryden’s Dramatic Poesy] are indeed grammatical revisions, and many of them imply stricter usage, whether according to current Restoration usage or to Dryden’s own sense of correctness”. It seems that Johnson was aware of Dryden’s view of prepositional usage in and after 1684 and that he approved of it. As observed in Section 6.1.1, Johnson had a view that prepositions should be placed before the words or phrases governed by them. Furthermore, Johnson indicated the titles of Dryden’s works about 48 out of 114 citations from him within the range of entries on prepositions. Out of the 48 citations, 32 are from the works after 1684, the year when Dryden published the second edition of his Dramatic Poesy: 1 from Albion and Albanius (1685), 2 from Don Sebastian, King of Portugal (1690), 2 from Satires of Decimus Junius Juvenalis (1693), 20 from Works of Virgil [...] Translated into English Verse (1697) and 7 from Fables, Ancient and Modern (1700). As Wimsatt has claimed in his statement quoted earlier in this sub-section, Johnson highly estimated Dryden’s literary gifts. It is generally acknowledged that Johnson’s Life of Dryden (1779) was written with special enthusiasm compared with other works of the series of “Lives of the English Poets” (1779-1781). This work of Johnson’s was written from a literary viewpoint, and it shows that he was generally in favour of Dryden’s works almost independent of the point of when they were published. As to one of Dryden’s works in the 1650’s, Johnson remarked as follows: It was not till the death of Cromwell, in 1658, that he [Dryden] became a publick candidate for fame, by publishing Heroic Stanzas on the late Lord Protector; which, compared with the verses of Sprat and Waller on the same occasion, were sufficient to raise great expectations of the rising poet. (Johnson 1779:247)

Concerning Annus Mirabilis (1667), a work in the 1660’s, Johnson (1779:251) commented that it “may be esteemed one of his [Dryden’s] most elaborate works”. Among the authorities of Johnson as a man of letters, it is widely known that Absalom and Achitophel (1681), which Dryden published in the 1680’s, won Johnson’s highest praise. Johnson (1779:276) said of the work that “There is no need to enquire why those verses were read, which, to all the attractions of wit, elegance, and harmony, added the co-operation of all the factious passions, and filled every mind with triumph or resentment”. However, none of

141 these three titles of Dryden’s works, all of which were published before 1684, is seen in entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. This is naturally thought to signify that Johnson was essentially not a man of letters when he quoted from Dryden in the entries. Instead, as already analysed in this sub-section, Johnson quite frequently quoted from Dryden’s works in and after 1684 there. This fact strongly suggests that Johnson selected Dryden’s phrases and sentences to be quoted in the entries based on his view of prepositional usage. Johnson’s practice of quoting from Dryden analysed above also indicates that Johnson very frequently selected citations in entries on prepositions as a prescriptive grammarian. Only when we understand this, can the reason why Johnson scarcely quoted from the Bible be also explained. When Johnson referred to the Bible in the “Preface” to his Dictionary, he (1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 62) in the “Preface”]) called it “the translation of the Bible”, not the English Bible or simply the Bible. For Johnson as a grammarian, the English Bible was essentially a translation whose language was affected by other languages. I already discussed this in Section 1.4.2, but Johnson had a following belief: No book was ever turned from one language into another, without imparting something of its native idiom; this is the most mischievous and comprehensive innovation; single words may enter by thousands, and the fabrick of the tongue continue the same, but new phraseology changes much at once; it alters not the single stones of the building, but the order of the columns. (1755: n. pag. [10th (par. 90) in the “Preface”])

If Johnson supplied citations in entries on prepositions basically as a prescriptive grammarian who wanted to preserve the purity of the English language, it is little wonder that he hardly quoted from the English Bible, which is a translation, there. We are now required to distinguish Johnson as a grammarian who was reluctant to depend on the language of the Bible from Johnson as a moralist who valued the contents of the Bible. When we recognize Johnson’s reluctance of depending on translations in this way, it may seem strange that Johnson quoted frequently from Dryden’s translation of Virgil (Publius Vergillius Maro) in entries on prepositions. However, this does not cause a problem, because Dryden had translated Virgil’s works after his establishment of his view of prepositional usage which is thought to have been approved by Johnson.

6.1.4 Webster’s Biblical Citations in Entries on Prepositions In this sub-section, I will focus my attention on the patterns of Webster’s use of biblical citations of his own choice in entries on prepositions. Concerning the point of how he modified Johnson’s citations from the Bible, this will be discussed in Section 6.1.5. In entries on prepositions, Webster utilized biblical citations directly taken from the Bible in three ways; supplying the citations, he indicated prepositional usage, explained the semantic concepts of prepositions and gave the synonymous definitions of prepositions, adding his invented examples from time to time. Firstly, in the entries on after, before and through, Webster provided sub-entries to indicate the usage of relevant prepositions, referring to citations from the Bible:

142 W: AFTER, prep. 2. Later in time; as, after supper. This word often precedes a sentence, as a governing preposition. After I have arisen, I will go before you into Galilee. Math. xxvi. W: BEFORE, prep. 7. Preceding in time. Before I was afflicted, I went astray. Ps. cxix. Before Abraham was, I am. John viii. Here the preposition has a sentence following for an object. W: THROUGH, prep. 4. By means of; by the agency of; noting instrumentality. This signification is a derivative of the last. Through the scent of water it will bud. Job xiv. Sanctify them through thy truth. John xvii. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. vi.

In these examples, it is observed that Webster thought that before in the citations from Ps. and John, which is usually regarded as a conjunction nowadays, belonged to the category of prepositions. By contrast, Webster did not provide an entry on before as a conjunction. Secondly, Webster tried to explain the semantic concepts of some prepositions, using the word ‘noting’ as Johnson did. The following is an example in a sub-entry on for: W: FOR, prep. 1. Against; in the place of; as a substitute or equivalent, noting equal value or satisfactory compensation, either in barter and sale, in contract, or in punishment. Buy us and our land for bread. Gen. xlvii. 19. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Ex. xxi. As the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Matt. xx. See also Mark viii. 37. Matt. xvi. 26.

Other sub-entries where Webster supplied biblical citations as the aids of his explanations with the word ‘noting’ are ‘BEFORE, prep. 3’, ‘ON, prep. 12’, ‘TO, prep. 5’, ‘TO, prep. 6’, ‘UPON, prep. 12’, ‘WITH, prep. 2’. The third pattern of Webster’s use of biblical citations in entries on prepositions is that Webster added his invented examples to biblical citations; Webster tried to clarify the usage of some prepositions by doing this. Examples are: W: OVER, prep. 2. Above in place or position; opposed to below; as the clouds over our heads. The smoke rises over the city. The mercy-seat that is over the testimony. Ex.xxx. W: THROUGH, prep. 5. Over the whole surface or extent; as, to ride through the country. Their tongue walketh through the earth. Ps. lxxiii.

Other examples of this type of use of biblical citations are found in sub-entries ‘ON, prep. 2’ and ‘ON, prep. 12’.

143 As analysed above, three patterns are found in Webster’s use of biblical citations in entries on prepositions.

6.1.5 Other Characteristics of Webster’s Use of Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions in His Dictionary Though not so often, Webster borrowed citations which had been supplied in entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. In conjunction with this, there are some aspects to be investigated. They are Webster’s practice in borrowing Johnson’s citations and the difference between the two lexicographers in respect of their view of the senses and usage of some prepositions. I will investigate these aspects one by one. And this observation will necessitate reference to Webster’s invented examples supplied in entries on prepositions, which I will make collaterally. (1) Webster’s Practice in Borrowing Johnson’s Citations As he did in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency, Webster basically shortened Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on prepositions. The following is one of the examples: J: ABOUT. prep. 1. Round, surrounding, encircling. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee. Bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thy heart. Proverbs, iii. 3. ---------W: ABOUT, prep. 1. Around; on the exterior part of surface. Bind them about thy neck. Prov. iii. 3. Isa. l.

He also shortened Johnson’s citations from sources other than the Bible: J: TO. preposition. 12. Noting the subject of an affirmation. I trust, I may not trust thee; for thy word Is but the vain breath of a common man: Believe me, I do not believe thee, man; I have a king’s oath to the contrary. Shakesp. King John. ---------W: TO, prep. 12. Noting the subject of an affirmation. I have a king’s oath to the contrary. Shak.

In entries on prepositions, however, Webster did not always shorten Johnson’s citations as shown above. That is, Webster occasionally copied the whole of Johnson’s relatively long citations as they are there. Such a practice of Webster’s can be observed, for instance, in the following excerpts from the entry on for, the entry where Webster supplied the most numerous citations within the range of entries on prepositions:

144 J: FOR. prep. 4. / W: FOR, prep. 5. If a man can be fully assured of any thing for a truth, without having examined, what is there that he may not embrace for truth? Locke. J: FOR. prep. 7. / W: FOR, prep. 7. Shall I think the world was made for one, And men are born for kings, as beasts for men, Not for protection, but to be devoured. Dryden. [Here, Webster modified the 3rd line of Johnson's citation which is “Not for protection, but to be devour'd. Dryd. Span. Fryar.”. K.M.]

The citations above have in common that most phrases and clauses of them include the entry-word for. Webster copied the whole of Johnson’s citations on such an occasion. We can see other examples in the eighth and fourteenth sub-entries on the word in his Dictionary. This practice of Webster’s cannot be regarded as accidental or irregular. The first sub-entry of the entry on for partly proves it. In this sub-entry, Webster explained prepositional usage, quoting a biblical sentence of his own choice which includes the relevant preposition 3 times: W: FOR. prep. 1. “And Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for flocks, and for the cattle of the herds;” that is, according to the original, he gave them bread against horses, like the Gr. .2 and Fr. contre, Gen. xlvii.17.

(2) Webster’s and Johnson’s View of the Senses of Some Prepositions Webster’s citations in the entry on for also suggest that he thought of the senses of some prepositions differently from Johnson. In the following two sets of examples, citations Webster borrowed from Johnson show that the former unified the senses of prepositions discriminated by the latter: J: FOR. prep. 4. In the character of. She thinks you favour’d: But let her go, for an ungrateful woman. A. Phillips. J: FOR. prep. 5. With resemblance of. I hear for certain, and do speak the truth, The gentle York is up. Shakespeare’s Henry IV. p. ii. ---------W: FOR, prep. 5. In the character of; noting resemblance; a sense derived from substitution or standing in the place of [...]. But let her go for an ungrateful woman. Phillips. I hear for certain, and do speak the truth. Shak. J: FOR. prep. 1. Because of.

145 For as much as it is a fundamental law in the Turkish empire, that they may, without any other provocation, make war upon Christendom for the propagation of their laws; so the Christians may at all times, as they think good, be upon the prevention. Bacon’s War with Spain. J: FOR. prep. 32. With intention of. Here huntsmen with delight may read How to chuse dogs for scent or speed. Waller. ---------W: FOR. prep, 14. Because; on account of; by reason of. He cried out for anguish. I cannot go for want of time. How to choose dogs for scent or speed. Waller. For as much as it is a fundamental law – Bacon.

(3) Webster’s and Johnson’s View of the Usage of Some Prepositions Webster sometimes cross-referred to entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. The investigation of this aspect is helpful in order to know how Webster’s view of prepositional usage differs from Johnson’s. In the entry on by, for instance, Johnson commented on a difference between with and by. According to Johnson, when the two prepositions were used to express the concept of instrumental, with should follow transitive verbs, and by intransitive verbs. He tried to make this view clear by supplying 1 citation from Dryden and 2 invented examples in a relevant sub-entry: J: BY. prep. 2. It notes the instrument, and is always used after a verb neuter, where with would be put after an active; as, he was killed with a sword; he died by a sword. But by Pelides’ arms when Hector fell, He chose AEneas, and he chose as well. Dryden, AEn. vi.

Webster, on the other hand, said as follows in the entry on with in his Dictionary, referring to Johnson’s invented verbal examples supplied in the entry on by in his Dictionary: W: WITH, prep. after 15. With and by are closely allied in many of their uses, and it is not easy to lay down a rule by which their uses may be distinguished. It is observed by Johnson that with seems rather to denote an instrument, and by a cause; as, he killed an enemy with a sword, but he died by an arrow. But this rule is not always observed.

Undeniably, Webster misunderstood Johnson’s intention here; instead of relating with to transitive verbs and by to intransitive verbs, Webster discussed the relation between with and an instrument and that between by and a cause. Still, this instance shows that Webster extensively referred to entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary, and how Webster’s view of with and by differs from Johnson’s. Incidentally, Webster indicated another usage of by in the entry on the preposition, supplying 2 examples invented by him: W: BY, prep. 8. On; as, “to pass by land or water;” “great battles by sea and land.” In the latter phrase, at or on might be substituted for by.

146 Johnson did not provide its corresponding usage note anywhere in the entry on by in his Dictionary.

(4) Webster’s Invented Examples The analyses above also reveal that Webster supplied his invented examples quite frequently in entries on prepositions, as part of which was already referred to in passing in the analyses made so far. Actually, Webster supplied numerous invented examples in the entries. The number of them in respective entries is as shown in the table below.

Table 16: Invented Examples in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary Entrywords about after at before below

Invented 3 4 34 4 2

Entrywords by down from for in

Invented 27 6 10 35 18

Entrywords into of off on over

Invented 16 31 3 30 12

Entrywords through to upon with -----

Invented 7 35 31 14 -----

This table indicates that Webster supplied 322 invented verbal examples within the range of entries on prepositions in his Dictionary. He allocated this type of verbal example in 173 sub-entries on prepositions. Specifically, Webster invented at least one verbal example for each of sub-entries on prepositions with the only exceptions of ‘BEFORE, prep. 1.’, ‘BELOW, prep. 1.’ and ‘BELOW, prep. 3’.

6.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis Johnson supplied citations in entries on prepositions differently from those on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency. This is also true about Webster. With regard to biblical citations, while Johnson seldom supplied them for illustrating the senses and usage of prepositions, Webster generously supplied them for the purpose. These practices are entirely opposite to those in two other types of entries. Besides, it is also significant in entries on prepositions that Johnson quoted from Dryden especially frequently. This is thought to have resulted from Johnson’s approval of Dryden’s prepositional usage which had been formulated by the year 1684, 71 years before Johnson’s Dictionary. Actually, the analyses of Johnson’s citations from Dryden within the range of entries on prepositions reveal that the citations were frequently supplied when Johnson expressed his view of English grammar and usage. In general, both Johnson and Webster treated prepositions from a grammatical viewpoint. This is a point which becomes clarified through the analyses of Johnson’s use of citations from Dryden and Webster’s use of biblical citations. Their elaboration in the grammatical

147 treatment of prepositions can also be confirmed by their provision of invented verbal examples. Johnson occasionally supplied his invented examples in entries on prepositions, which was rarely performed in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency. In Webster’s case, he supplied his invented examples quite frequently to illustrate the usage of prepositions.

6.2

Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs

6.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Prepositional Adverbs There are particles which have two functions; they sometimes function as prepositions and sometimes as adverbs. When such particles function as adverbs, they are called prepositional adverbs or adverbial particles. As Randolph Quirk et al. (1985:1151) have pointed out, the most obvious difference between prepositions and prepositional adverbs is that “where prepositions require a following noun phrase as a prepositional complement, there is no such requirement for adverbs”. Both Johnson and Webster recognized this basic distinction between prepositions and prepositional adverbs. The table below shows the practices of their treatment of prepositional adverbs; in this table, the letters S and C indicate the number of sub-entries and citations, respectively.

Table 17: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries Johnson S

Webster

Entrywords about after before below by

C

S

6 2 7 3 3

9 3 8 8 7

4 1 4 4 ---

down

6

7

7

Johnson C

2 --3 1 -----

Entrywords in off on over throug h to

S

Webster C

S

C

6 8 6 11 2

12 10 15 44 5

--7 5 8 3

--2 --2 ---

4

8

---

---

This table indicates that Johnson allocated a total of 136 citations in 12 entries on prepositional adverbs, or an average of 11.2 citations per entry. As to Webster, he allocated 10 citations in 9 entries, or an average of 1.1 citations per entry. With regard to the number of sub-entries, Johnson provided 64 sub-entries in 12 entries, and Webster 43 sub-entries in 9 entries, an average for Johnson 2.1 citations per sub-entry and for Webster of 0.23. These figures are almost the same as those in the case of entries on prepositions; Table 12 in Section 6.1.1 indicates that Johnson supplied 2.3 citations per sub-entry on average and Webster 0.54 within the respective ranges of entries on prepositions.

148 6.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs The following is a table which shows how Johnson selected sources of citations for entries on prepositional adverbs.

Table 18: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs in Johnson’s Dictionary Sources

Freq.

Sources

Dryden

24

Wiseman

Shakespeare

21

Waller

Locke

10

Prior

Freq. 2

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Spenser

1

Hooker

1

2

Smith

1

Hayward

1

2

Smalridge

1

Hale

1

Bacon

9

Knolles

2

Sandys

1

Grew

1

South

5

Daniel

2

Sanderson

1

Floyer

1

Milton

5

Collier

2

Rowe

1

Denham

1

Bible

4

Arbuthnot

2

Roscommon

1

Allestree

1

Watts

3

Woodward

1

Philips

1

Crashaw

1

Sidney

3

Tickell

1

Peacham

1

Blackmore

1

Pope

3

Taylor

1

Oldham

1

Bentley

1

L’Estrange

3

Tatler

1

Newton

1

Baker

1

Atterbury

3

Swift

1

Mortimer

1

Addison

1

This table illustrates two tendencies. Firstly, Johnson was conscious of Dryden and made light of the Bible here. This tendency is the same as the one in entries on prepositions which was clarified in Section 6.1.2. To be specific, citations from Dryden within the range of entries on prepositional adverbs account for 17.6%, being quoted by far the most frequently. In contrast to this, Johnson quoted no more than 4 times from the Bible here; biblical citations within this range account for 2.9%. Secondly, Johnson carefully selected phrases and sentences. In the case of entries on prepositions, he supplied 618 citations from 83 sources, that is, he quoted 7.4 times on average from one source. However, he supplied 136 citations from 48 sources in entries on prepositional adverbs, quoting 2.8 times on average from one source here. Table 18 also shows that Johnson quoted only once each from 29 sources out of the 48. As for Webster, it is not necessary to provide a table to show his selection of sources of citations in entries on prepositional adverbs since the sources are quite small in number. It will be sufficient to indicate here that he supplied 6 citations from the Bible and 1 citation each from Shakespeare, Sanderson, Prior and Dryden.

149 6.2.3 Johnson’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs As he did in entries on prepositions, Johnson occasionally supplied citations to support his grammatical explanation in entries on prepositional adverbs. He performed this in 6 subentries out of the relevant 64: ‘ABOUT. adv. 5’, ‘OVER. adv. 7’, ‘TO. adv. 1’, ‘TO. adv. 3’, ‘OVER. adv. 13’, ‘AFTER. adv. 1’, The citations supplied in these 6 sub-entries reflect Johnson’s normative criteria of the language and the aspects of English usage which he was especially interested in. I will analyse the contents of the 6 sub-entries one by one to make Johnson’s practice clear. In one of the sub-entries on about, Johnson treated about as follows: J: ABOUT. adv. 5. With to before a verb; as, about to fly, upon the point, within a small distance of. These dying lovers, and their floating sons, Suspend the fight, and silence all our guns: Beauty and youth, about to perish, finds Such noble pity in brave English minds. Waller.

It is manifest here that Johnson supplied a citation from Waller to support his explanation of the usage of the word; he italicized the word to as well as about in this citation. In a sub-entry on over, he referred to over as follows, based on his view of parts of speech: J: OVER. adv. 7. Past. This is rather the sense of an adjective. Soliman pausing a little upon the matter, the heat of his fury being something over; suffered himself to be intreated. Knolles’s Hist. of the Turks. Mediate upon the effects of anger; and the best time to do this, is to look back upon anger when the fit is over. Bacon. What the garden choicest bears To sit and taste, till this meridian heat Be over, and the sun more cool decline. Milton. [Three other citations from Taylor, Atterbury and Pope are omitted. K.M.]

Johnson provided the following sub-entries in the entry on to, which clearly show his grammatical view of the prepositional adverb: J: TO. adv. 1. A particle coming between two verbs, and noting the second as the object of the first. The delay of our hopes teaches us to mortify our desires. Smallridge. J: TO. adv. 3. After an adjective it notes its object. We ready are to try our fortunes To the last man. Shakesp. Henry IV. p.ii. The lawless sword his childrens blood shall shed, Increast for slaughter, born to beg their bread. Sandys.

150 In a sub-entry on over, Johnson referred to the formation of compound words: J: OVER. adv. 13. In composition it has a great variety of significations; it is arbitrarily prefixed to nouns, adjectives, or other parts of speech in a sense equivalent to more than enough; too much. Devilish Macbeth, By many of these trains hath sought to win me Into his pow’r: and modest wisdom plucks me From over-credulous haste. Shakesp. Macbeth. St. Hierom reporteth, that he saw a satyr; but the truth hereof I will not rashly impugn, or overboldly affirm. Peach. These over-busy spirits, whose labour is their only reward, hunt a shadow and chase the wind. Decay of Piety. [Sixteen other citations are omitted: 1 each from Allestree, Floyer, Collier, Atterbury, Mortimer; 2 each from Wiseman and Watts; 3 each from Dryden; and 4 from Locke. K.M.]

In this sub-entry all citations include compound words with over. Other citations omitted here include such words as over-busy, over-fermentation, over-cold, over-care, o’erfeeds, o’er-fill’d, over-digestion, over-flourish, over-confidence, over-diligently, over-fondness, over-dose, over-acted, over-burn, over-fatigue and over-greedy. This type of compound word seems to have interested Johnson greatly. Actually, he was not satisfied with only listing the words. He even provided no less than 60 entries on words beginning with over-. In this regard, the following statement of Johnson’s in the “Preface” to his Dictionary does not accord with his practice: Compounded or double words I have seldom noted, except when they obtain a signification different from that which the components have in their simple state. Thus highwayman, woodman, and horsecourser, require an explication; but of thieflike or coachdriver no notice was needed, because the primitives contain the meaning of the compounds. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 33) in the “Preface”])

Johnson added invented examples which are sentences to citations in one of the sub-entries on prepositional adverbs where he provided a usage note: J: AFTER. adv. 1. In succeeding time. It is used of time mentioned as succeeding some other. So we cannot say, I shall be happy after, but hereafter; but we say, I was first made miserable by the loss, but was after happier. Far be it from me, to justify the cruelties which were at first used towards them, which had their reward soon after. Bacon. The chief were those who, from the pit of hell Roaming to seek their prey on earth, durst fix Their seats long after next the seat of God. Paradise Lost.

One of the two invented examples here is an instance of the ‘wrong’ use of after, and the other is that of the ‘correct’ use of the same word. The contents of the 6 sub-entries above shows that Johnson supplied a relatively small number of citations with his usage notes, excluding the cases of ‘OVER. adv. 7’ and

151 ‘OVER. adv. 13’. He supplied 1 citation each in ‘ABOUT. adv. 5’ and ‘TO. adv. 1’; 2 citations in ‘TO. adv. 3’; and 3 citations in ‘AFTER. adv. 1’. It can be said that when he provided usage notes in entries on prepositional adverbs, he tended to put them ahead of citations. As to the two sub-entries on over, they show that Johnson exceptionally supplied many citations when he explained the usage which interested him most. Such a tendency can be confirmed by the contents of the 2 sub-entries below; in these, Johnson provided usage notes and invented examples without any citations:

J: OFF. adv. 1. Of this adverb the chief use is to conjoin it with verbs: as, to come off ; to fly off ; to take off, which are found under the verbs. J: OFF. adv. 6. It signifies any kind of disappointment; defeat; interruption; adverse division: as, the affairs is off; the match is off.

However, this practice signifies the probability that Johnson carefully selected phrases and sentences when he quoted them to illustrate his view of the usage of prepositional adverbs. In this regard, Ronald Wells once claimed the following on the assumption that every single sub-entry in Johnson’s Dictionary included citations: With Johnson's work, the inductive principle becomes firmly established in English lexicographic tradition. To the glosses, the compilations, and the hard word lists of his predecessors, Johnson added a new empiricism, a wide ranging program of reading in diverse sources. By recording from his reading particular instances of usage, Johnson could then proceed by induction to a general definition of meaning. (Wells 1973:21)

This claim is not necessarily true about sub-entries on prepositional adverbs, as the examples observed so far prove. Certainly, Johnson most often referred to wide range of English literature in determining senses of words as evident in entries on verbs of high frequency. However, it is not correct to think that he did this consistently throughout the entire compilation process. Incidentally, Johnson sometimes did not supply citations for determining the senses of prepositional adverbs, as well as explaining their usage. For instance, the following sub-entries do not include any citations: J: DOWN. adv. 2. Tending towards the ground. J: ON. adv. 4. Not off.

These sub-entries also suggest that Wells’s claim may be incorrect. Johnson did not always rely on inductive principles.

152 6.2.4 Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs Webster did more than define prepositional adverbs in 5 entries out of 9 indicated in Table 17 in Section 6.2.1: after, before, down, on and over. Specifically, he provided usage notes 9 times: twice each in the entries on after, down, on and over, and once in the entry on before. In these entries, he basically supplied invented examples in explaining the usage of their relevant words, and did not supply a single citation. This situation necessitates clarifying two aspects of Webster’s habit of supplying verbal examples. One is his way of supplying invented examples, and the other is that of supplying citations. In the following analysis, I will firstly categorize the 9 usage notes to clarify Webster’s practice of using invented examples, and then give an account of his use of citations. In the entries on after and before, Webster expressed his view of after and before in terms of parts of speech: W: AFTER, adv. Posterior; later in time; as, it was about the space of three hours after. In this sense, the word, however, is really a preposition, the object being understood; about three hours after the time or fact before specified. W: BEFORE, adv. In some of the examples of the use of before, which Johnson places under the adverb, the word is a preposition governing a sentence; as, “Before the hills appeared.” This is the real construction, however overlooked or misunderstood.

Incidentally, it is hardly possible to decide which of Johnson’s citations Webster referred to in the entry on before above. However, Webster’s statement here implies that he regarded some words which modern grammarians think subordinate conjunctions as prepositions. In the entry on on, Webster tried to elucidate the usage of on, by comparing it with the usage of under, off and within: W: ON, adv. On, when it expresses contact with the surface of a thing, is opposed to under, off, or within, and when it expresses contact with the side of a thing, is opposed to off.

In the entries on down and on, Webster referred to elliptical expressions, supplying invented phrases and sentences. He discussed ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ elliptical expressions: W: DOWN, adv. Locke uses it for go down, or received; as, any kind of food will down: but the use is not elegant, nor legitimate. W: DOWN, adv. It is sometimes used without a verb, as down, down; in which cases, the sense is known by the construction. Down with him, signifies, throw him. Down, down, may signify, come down, or go down, or take down, lower.

153 W: ON, adv. On is sometimes used as an exclamation, or rather as a command to move or proceed, some verb being understood; as, cheerly on, courageous friends; that is, go on, move on.

One of the usage notes in the entry on over concerns the semantic concept of the word: W: OVER, adv. Over is used with rolling or turning from side to side; as, to turn over, to roll over.

It can be said that the 7 examples above indicate that Webster was conscious of the usage of prepositional adverbs, the use of elliptical expressions and the distinction between prepositions and prepositional adverbs. And he supplied invented examples to call the dictionary reader’s attention to the points. The remaining 2 usage notes concern compound words. Like Johnson, Webster also seems to have had a keen interest in this type of word. He, however, treated the words in a different way. In the entry on over, Webster commented on compound words with over as follows: W: OVER, adv. Over, in composition, denotes spreading, covering above; as in overcast, overflow; or across, as to overhear, or above, as to overhang; or turning, changing sides, as in overturn; or more generally beyond, implying excess or superiority, as in overact, overcome.

It was analysed in the previous sub-section that Johnson also referred to compound words with over with the recognition that over in them had the sense “more than enough; too much” only; Johnson did not mention any other senses of the word. Differently from this practice, Webster pointed out the senses of “spreading, covering above”, “across” and “changing sides”, as well as “excess or superiority”, of the same word here in relation to relevant compound words. In this sense, Webster can be said to have been more skilful than Johnson in discriminating the senses of the word. Webster also referred to compound words with after in its relevant entry as follows: W: AFTER, adv. After is prefixed to many words, forming compounds, but retaining its genuine signification. Some of the following words are of this kind, but in some of them after seems rather to be a separate word.

Saying this, Webster provided many entries on the relevant compound words as his words “Some of the following words are of this kind [...]” indicate. That is, the last part of the entry on after in Webster’s Dictionary is also an introductory remark to entries on the relevant compound words. After this statement concerning compound words with after, Webster provided 50 entries on the words including after-account, after-ages, after-band, after-birth and after-clap. This practice is quite different from Johnson’s. Though Johnson provided 25 entries on compound words composed of after and other words, he did not refer to them in the entry on after. Additionally, Webster differed from Johnson in giving a grammatical account of compound words. It was also confirmed in Section 6.2.3 that Johnson did not expound on

154 compound words. In Webster’s case, he clearly commented on compound words with prepositional adverbs in the section ‘Adverbs or Modifiers’ in the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary: [...] they [prepositional adverbs] are prefixed and become a part of the word, as overcome, underlay. In these uses, these words modify or change the sense of the verb, and when prefixed, are united with the verb in orthography. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [17th in the “Grammar”])

The discussion above concerns entries on prepositional adverbs in Webster’s Dictionary where he provided usage notes. It is clear now that he supplied only invented examples in such entries. In what way, then, did Webster make use of a small number of citations, namely 10 in number, in entries on prepositional adverbs? The answer to this question is that he supplied citations there exclusively for the purpose of illustrating his synonymous definitions of entry-words. As I mentioned at the end of Section 6.2.2, Webster supplied 6 citations from the Bible and 4 from other sources within the range of entries on prepositional adverbs. As to the former, he eliminated 2 biblical citations out of 4 which Johnson supplied in entries on prepositional adverbs in his Dictionary. This means that Webster borrowed 2 citations from Johnson’s Dictionary and took 4 directly from the Bible. The principle of Webster’s selection of biblical citations for illustrating the senses of prepositional adverbs is apparently the same as the one revealed in the analyses of entries on verbs of high frequency and prepositions. That is, he often preferred linguistic conciseness to biblical authority. To be concrete, Webster eliminated Johnson’s biblical citations supplied in sub-entries ‘ABOUT. adv. 8’ and ‘OVER. adv. 6’ in his Dictionary. One of them is this relatively long sentence: J: ABOUT. adv. 8. To come about; to come to some certain state or point. Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about, after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son. 1 Sam. i. 20.

And he took clauses from Johnson’s biblical citations which were supplied in ‘OVER. adv. 2’ and ‘OVER. adv. 1’, and supplied them in ‘OVER, adv. 7’ and ‘OVER, adv. 6’ in his Dictionary. An example is: J: OVER. adv. 2. More than a quantity assigned. And when they had mete it, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack. Ex. xvi. 18. ---------W: OVER, adv. 7. More than the quantity assigned; beyond a limit. He that gathered much had nothing over. Ex. xvi.

The examples above suggest the probability that Webster valued brevity highly in supplying biblical citations and that the religious implications of the citations were of

155 second importance for him. The biblical sentences which he took from the original source strongly support the probability. All of the 4 citations consist of less than 10 words, as shown below: W: ABOUT, adv. 1. Near to in number or quantity. There fell that day about three thousand men. Ex. xxxii. W: ABOUT, adv. 3. Here and there; around; in one place and another. Wandering about from house to house. 1. Tim. v. W: BEFORE, adv. 3. Further onward in place, in progress, or in front. Reaching forth to those things which are before. Phil. iii. W: BEFORE, adv. 4. In front; on the fore part. The battle was before and behind. 2 Chron. xiii.

As to Webster’s citations from sources other than the Bible, all of which were borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary, he also shortened them in most cases. Examples are: J: BEFORE. adv. 6. Already. You tell me, mother, what I knew before, The Phrygian fleet is landed on the shore. Dryden’s AEneid. ---------W: BEFORE, adv. 1. In time preceding. You tell me what I knew before. Dryden. J: BELOW. adv. 2. On earth; in opposition to heaven. The fairest child of Jove, Below for ever sought, and bless’d above. Prior. ---------W: BELOW, adv. 2. On the earth, as opposed to the heavens. The fairest child of Jove below. Prior.

Within the range of entries on prepositional adverbs, there is only one time when Webster copied Johnson’s citation as it is. It is the following one: The questions no way touch upon puritanism, either off or on. Sanderson.

However, it may safely be said that this citation can in no way be shortened further, since this sentence was quoted in the entry on the italicized word in it.

156 In entries on prepositional adverbs, Webster consistently tried hard to make citations as short as possible, whether they may be from the Bible or other sources. This is also a practice which was observed in the case of entries on prepositions. However, differently from that case, in entries on prepositional adverbs Webster exclusively used citations for illustrating the senses, or his synonymous definitions, of related words, rather than for exemplifying their usage. When exemplifying the usage of prepositional adverbs, Webster preferred to depend on his invented examples.

6.2.5 Generalization of the Analysis The fact that Johnson and Webster provided entries on prepositional adverbs apart from those on prepositions shows that they were strongly conscious of English grammar and usage in the compilation of their dictionaries. Besides, both of them did not supply citations often when they indicated the usage of these words. However, this does not mean that they were unaware of the importance of verbal examples in indicating the usage of prepositional adverbs. In Johnson’s case, he carefully selected phrases and sentences for citations to exemplify his usage notes. When he was unable to find phrases and sentences which accorded with his normative criteria in the literature he referred to, he supplied invented examples against his usual practice. As to Webster, he supplied invented examples very frequently when providing usage notes for the words. Furthermore, Webster did not make use of a single citation for the purpose. Additionally, both Johnson and Webster also treated compound words in conjunction with prepositional adverbs. In this respect, Webster’s task was more skilfully performed than Johnson’s. While Johnson treated compound words only in the entry on over, Webster expounded on the words in the entry on after, as well as in the entry on over. Besides, Webster discriminated the senses of their relevant prepositional adverbs in more detail than Johnson, supplying adequate examples of the words.

7:

Verbal Examples for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations

7.1

The Purpose of This Chapter

Sections 5.1.4 and 6.1.1 to 6.1.6 revealed that Johnson and Webster had been keenly interested in the treatment of prepositional usage, respectively. My intention in this chapter lies in detailing similarities and differences between the two lexicographers in respect of their view of prepositions. It is generally agreed among grammarians that solving the problem of which prepositions collocate with which adjectives and verbs is highly important. This is also applicable to lexicographers. Accroding to Stefania Nuccorini (2003:372), “Strictly speaking grammatical collocations concern prepositional phrases or, rather, the prepositions obligatorily or typically used either after or before a lexical word (verbs, nouns, adjectives)”; she has remarked thus, analysing how the lexicographers of modern English collocational dictionaries have tackled the points. In eighteenth-century Britain, there were especially heated arguments surrounding this point, as Sterling Leonard (1962:112) has remarked this based on his perusal of various documents which were published at that time: “An extraordinary elaboration is devoted to rules on uses of prepositions”. It is hardly conceivable that Johnson was not part of this historical context; as analysed in Sections 1.4 and 3.2, he was fully aware of and conscious of the climate among grammarians at his time. As for Webster, it is also very probable that he, as a grammarian, paid particular attention to adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations. According to Randolph Quirk et. al. (1989:1221), the adjective-preposition collocation is labelled “adjective complementation by a prepositional phrase”, and characterised as follows: The lexical bond is strongest with adjectives for which, in a given sense, the complementation is obligatory. (Quirk et. al. 1989:1221)

As to the verb-preposition collocation, Quirk et. al. (1989:1155) also remarked that it “consists of a lexical verb followed by a preposition with which it is semantically and/or syntactically associated”, terming the combination a ‘prepositional verb’. I will adopt these definitions here. The verb-preposition collocation is usually regarded as different from the phrasal verb in some respects. That is, in verb-preposition collocations, the relevant particle always functions as a preposition, not as an adverb, the collocation retaining the original senses of the relevant verb, and the verb preceding the preposition is usually intransitive except for a small number of cases. With this recognition in mind, I will survey how Johnson and Webster treated the two types of collocations and supplied verbal examples for them.

158

7.2

Survey of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Collocations

In their dictionaries, both Johnson and Webster provided a considerable number of subentries for giving guidance on the usage of the two types of collocations, often supplying verbal examples. The following table shows the result of the analyses. Examples have been collected with reference to Randolph Quirk, et. al.’s relevant discussion (1989:433 and 1150-1233) and their treatment in the OALD; 44 examples will be adequate for the concerns of this chapter. The column ‘Adjectives/Verbs’ indicates relevant adjectives and verbs. The column ‘Prepositions’ indicates the prepositions which Johnson or Webster claimed to be regularly used with these verbs and adjectives. J and W refer to Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s, respectively. The figures under J and W show the number of relevant citations; those in parentheses indicate how many invented examples Webster supplied for relevant collocations.

Table 19: Verbal Examples Supplied for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries Adjective/Verbs abstain account acquaint act

Prepositions from for of upon

J 3 -------

W --0(1) 0(1) 0(2)

Adjective/Verbs consist count delighted depend

afraid

of

2

1

agree angry

to/with at/with

--3

0(2) 2

disgust, disgusted glad impatient

apologize apply argue ashamed associate

for to with/against of with

2 4 2 3 0

0(1) ----2 0(1)

independent insist intent invest mad

averse aware believe

from/to of in/on

5 --3

0 0 2

object pleased prefer

capable certain comment compare compatible concerned conscious

of of upon/on to/with with/to with/in to/of

1 --5 4 ----2

0(2) 2 0(1) 1(4) 3 0(2) 1(2)

proud reason recover sick suffer work worthy

Prepositions in/of upon with from/on/ upon at/with/from

J --1 -----

W 2 --1 1(5)

3

0(2)

of/at/with of/at/for/ under on/of/from on to/on in/with on/after/of/ for to/against in/with above/ before/to of with of/from of with/from on of

5 ---

2(1) 0(6)

2 ----3 3

0 0(2) 1 0(3) 2(2)

6 --5

--0 2

3 ----------3

0 2(1) 1 1(3) 0(4) 0 2(1)

159 This table indicates that Johnson commented on 24 collocations out of 44, supplying 73 citations in all. In the “Preface” and the “Grammar” to his Dictionary, Johnson did not refer to the collocations in particular. However, this does not mean that Johnson had not paid much attention to them in compiling his Dictionary. In the Plan, which had been written before the compilation of the Dictionary, Johnson had stated the following: The syntax of this language [English] is too inconstant to be reduced to rules, and can be only learned by the distinct consideration of particular words as they are used by the best authors. Thus, we say, according to the present modes of speech, the soldier died of wounds, and the sailor perished with hunger; and every man acquainted with our language would be offended by a change of these particles, which yet seem originally assigned by chance, there being no reason to be drawn from grammar or reason why a man may not, with equal propriety, be said to dye with a wound, or perish of hunger. (Johnson 1747:18)

Then, he had continued as follows: Our syntax therefore is not to be taught by general rules, but by special precedents [...] it is not our power to have recourse to any established laws of speech, but we must remark how the writers of former ages have used the same word, and consider whether he can be acquitted of impropriety [...]. (Johnson 1747:19)

According to these statements, Johnson had directly related the collocations to the syntax of the language at the time when he had written the Plan, and he had intended to solve the relevant problem through historical investigations of the language. The fact that he did not refer to the collocations in the “Preface” and the “Grammar” in his Dictionary, as well as supplying a relatively small number of citations for them, suggests the probability that he abandoned this intention in the end. Otherwise, he may have elaborated some other method for the treatment of the combinations. This point will be clarified in the following sections. As for Webster, he did not express his view of the collocations in the “Preface” and the “Grammar” to his Dictionary similarly to Johnson. However, this does not mean that he was not interested in them. Table 19 reflects the fact that Webster treated more relevant collocations than Johnson; he gave comments on 39, 15 more than Johnson. In a sense, it implies the probability that Webster was more concerned with them than Johnson. As to citations, Webster supplied merely 31, but supplied 49 invented examples at the same time. With regard to the selection of the sources for citations, Johnson’s practice is indicated in the following table.

Table 20: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s Dictionary Sources Dryden

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

17

Watts

2

Atterbury

2

Rymer

1

Shakespeare

8

Taylor

2

Whitgift

1

Knolles

1

Bible

7

Prior

2

Wake

1

Herbert

1

Swift

5

Locke

2

Temple

1

Denham

1

160 Table 20: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s Dictionary (continued) Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq.

Sources

Pope

3

Hooker

2

Sprat

1

Milton

3

Clarendon

2

South

1

Bentley -----

Addison

3

Bacon

2

Sidney

1

-----

Freq. 1 -----

Although Johnson supplied a small number of citations, the table above reveals that he practised as he did in treating prepositions and prepositional adverbs; his treatment of the two types of words is reflected in Table 13 in Section 6.1.2 and Table 18 in Section 6.2.2. That is, he quoted from Dryden more frequently than from any other source. As to Webster, he selected sources of citations as shown below.

Table 21: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations in Webster’s Dictionary Sources Bible Dryden Shakespeare

Freq. 13 5 2

Sources Watts Milton L’Estrange

Freq. 1 1 1

Sources Broom Bacon Sources unidentified

Freq. 1 1 6

When this table is compared with Table 20, it is revealed that Webster quoted from the Bible more frequently than Johnson in spite of the fact that the former supplied a smaller number of citations than the latter. It was clarified in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.1.2 that Webster supplied a far smaller number of biblical citations than Johnson in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency. Contrary to this practice, Webster supplied a larger number of biblical citations than Johnson in entries on prepositions and prepositional adverbs, as confirmed in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.2. When these facts are taken into account, it can be said that Webster’s practice in selecting sources of citations for the treatment of adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations resembles that for the treatment of prepositions and prepositional adverbs, which was unusual for him.

7.3

Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Agreement

Table 19 in the previous section indicates that there are 19 verbs and adjectives for which both Johnson and Webster provided usage notes. In this section, I will adopt a sampling method and compare the contents of 3 sets of their sub-entries, namely on angry, ashamed and prefer. In these, Johnson and Webster agreed with each other about the prepositions to be used with angry, ashamed and prefer. By performing this task, I aim to reveal some

161 aspects of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice in explaining adjective-preposition and verbpreposition collocations, especially Webster’s use of biblical citations. Besides, the task will also provide a background for the next step; in Section 7.4, I will analyse sub-entries in which Johnson and Webster expressed differing opinions. In one of the sub-entries on angry, Johnson remarked as follows, supplying 3 citations: J: ANGRY. adj. 2. It seems properly to require, when the object of anger is mentioned, the particle at before a thing, and with before a person; but this is not always observed. Your Coriolanus is not much missed, but with his friends; the commonwealth doth stand, and so would do, were he angry at it. Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life. Gen. xlv.5. I think it a vast pleasure, that whenever two people of merit regard one another, so many scoundrels envy and are angry at them. Swift.

It is seen in this sub-entry that Johnson italicised not only the head-word angry but also its relevant prepositions. This is his usual practice in treating adjective-preposition and verbpreposition collocations, and it clearly shows that Johnson was fully aware of the value of citations to illustrate the usage of the language; it provides counter-evidence to the view that Johnson mainly supplied citations from a literary viewpoint, which was referred to in Sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.3. As to Webster, he explained angry with/at as follows: W: ANGRY, a. 1. Feeling resentment; provoked; followed generally by with before a person. God is angry with the wicked every day. Ps. vii. But it is usually followed by at before a thing. Wherefore should God be angry at thy voice? Eccles. v.

In this sub-entry, Webster also italicised the prepositions after angry, indicating that angry with should be used for a person and angry at for a thing, as Johnson had done. In this respect, Webster may have imitated Johnson’s practice. However, while Johnson quoted from 3 sources (Shakespeare, the Bible and Swift), Webster exclusively quoted from the Bible. Additionally, Webster’s citations are short and structurally simple as compared with Johnson’s. With regard to the relevant sub-entries on ashamed, Johnson’s contains the following: J: ASHAMED. adj. Touched with shame; generally with of before the cause of shame. Profess publickly the doctrine of Jesus Christ, not being ashamed of the word of God, or of any practices enjoined by it. Taylor’s Holy Living. One wou’d have thought she would have stirr’d; but strove With modesty, and was asham’d to move. Dryd. Fables. This I have shadowed, that you may not be ashamed of that hero, whose protection you undertake. Dryd. Conq. of Gr. Ded.

And Webster’s is:

162 W: ASHAMED, a. 1. Affected by shame; abashed or confused by guilt or a conviction of some criminal action or indecorous conduct, or by the exposure of some gross errors or misconduct, which the person is conscious must be wrong, and which tends to impair his honor or reputation. It is followed by of. Thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed. Ex. xvi. Israel shall be ashamed of his own counsel. Hosea x.

Here, Webster supplied a citation from the Bible to illustrate the use of ashamed of, disregarding Johnson’s citations from Jeremy Taylor and Dryden, and Webster’s citation are shorter and structurally simpler than Johnson’s. Then, in the entry on prefer, Johnson provided following 3 sub-entries for an illustration of relevant verb-adjective collocations: J: To PREFER. v.a. 2, 3 and 4. 2. With above before the thing postponed. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. Psalm cxxxvii. 6. 3. With before. He that cometh after me, is preferred before me; for he was before me. Jo. i. 15. It may worthily seem unto you a most shameful thing, to have prefered an infamous peace before a most just war. Knolles. O, spirit, that dost prefer Before all temples th’ upright heart. Milton. 4. With to. Would he rather leave this frantick scene, And trees and beasts prefer to courts and men. Prior.

In 2 of the 3 sub-entries here, Johnson only indicated prepositions to be put after prefer, remarking “With before” and “With to” and giving no definitions, though it is clearly seen that he collected sentences to be quoted under those indications. It seems that such subentries could be unified. Webster attempted this. The following is Webster’s practice: W: PREFER, v.t. 1. Literally, to bear or carry in advance, in the mind, affections or choice; hence, to regard more than another; to honor or esteem above another. It is sometimes followed by above, before, to. If I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. Ps. cxxxvii. He that cometh after me, is preferred before me. John i.

Unifying Johnson’s sub-entries in this way, Webster shortened Johnson’s biblical citations from Ps. and John. Webster’s preference for the brevity of citations is revealed here. The above 3 sets of sub-entries imply Johnson was highly interested in treating adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations, providing special sub-entries for them. They also imply the probability that Johnson had collected phrases and sentences to be supplied in such sub-entries beforehand. As for Webster, he seems to have tried to illustrate the use of the collocations by means of biblical phrases and sentences which are simple and possible in terms of structure. In addition, the sets of sub-entries analysed above prove that Webster did not necessarily follow Johnson’s practice even when his view of the collocations was similar.

163

7.4

Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Disagreement

Johnson’s and Webster’s opinions differ from each other about which prepositions should be used for at least 3 adjectives and 3 verbs within the range of collocations indicated in Table 19 in section 7.2. The adjectives are averse, independent and mad, and the verbs are believe, comment and invest. In this section, I will analyse six discrepancies between the lexicographers and their respective use of verbal examples. (1) averse from vs. averse to The problem of which preposition should be used for averse caused a heated argument among grammarians throughout the eighteenth century and at the beginning of the nineteenth. According to Sterling Leonard (1962:133 and 294), while Johnson and Lowth claimed that from was appropriate, other grammarians and men of letters, such as George Campbell, Phillip Withers, Murray and Swift, had the opinion that to should be used; Leonard further commented that Clarendon’s view of the combination was rather vague. However, in this respect, the OED may be said to have given a more detailed account than Leonard. In the entry on averse, the OED reads as follows: Examination of many instances shows that from has been used by Donne, Speed, R. Burton, Milton, Bp. Montagu, Sir T. Browne, Evelyn, Hale, Dryden, Pope, Johnson, Southey, Motley, Lowell, and J. R. Green; to by Heylin, Walton, Boyle, Locke, South, Addison, Steele, De Foe, D. North, Richardson, H. Walpole, Gibbon, Burke, Buckle, Mill; whilst Sir E. Sandys, Jer. Taylor, Barrow, Clarendon, Swift, Hume, Macaulay have used both. Shakespeare does not use the word.

The situation has also been referred to by Albert Baugh (2002:281) who ascribed the reason for the argument to Johnson’s and Lowth’s consciousness of the etymology of averse. In this regard, the entry on the word in the OED reads that averse from was first used in English in the translation of the Bible. One of the relevant passages in the AV is the following: [...] ye pull off the robe with the garment, fro them that passe by securely, as men auerse from warre. Micah. ii. 8.

Johnson, trying to prove the legitimacy of averse from, provided 2 sub-entries on averse. One is for the indication of the ‘correct’ collocation averse from, and the other for the ‘wrong’ combination averse to. The 2 sub-entries entirely concern the usage, and the sense of averse is not explained at all. The following is the contents of the sub-entries: J: AVERSE. adj. 3 and 4. 3. It has most properly from before the object of aversion. Laws politick are never framed as they should be, unless presuming the will of man to be inwardly obstinate, rebellious, and averse from all obedience unto the sacred laws of his nature. Hooker, b. i. They believed all who objected against their undertaking to be averse from peace. Clarendon, b. viii. These cares alone her virgin breast employ, Averse from Venus and the nuptial joy. Pope.

164 4. Very frequently, but improperly, to. He had, from the beginning of the war, been very averse to any advice of the privy council. Clarendon, b. viii. Diodorus tells us of one Charondos, who was averse to all innovation, especially when it was to proceed from particular persons. Swift on the Dissensions in Athens and Rome.

In these sub-entries, the facts seem to support Leonard’s investigation mentioned above in which Swift is quoted as indicating the ‘wrong’ combination and Clarendon is quoted in both sub-entries. Opposing Johnson’s view as expressed in the sub-entries, Webster tried to prove that averse to was the correct collocation: W: AVERSE, a. This word and its derivatives ought to be followed by to, and never by from. This word includes the idea of from; but the literal meaning being lost, the affection of the mind signified by the word, is exerted towards the object of dislike, and like its kindred terms, hatred, dislike, contrary, repugnant, &c., should be followed by to. Indeed it is absurd to speak of an affection of the mind exerted from an object. Averse expresses a less degree of opposition in the mind, than detesting and abhorring.

Webster’s explanation here cannot be regarded as a mere objection derived from his sense of rivalry with Johnson. That is, Webster, referring to the change in the sense of averse, claimed that the preposition after the word should be selected on the basis of the sense accepted widely at his time, not on its historically original sense. The description in the OED seems to support this claim. That is, the sub-entry ‘averse a. and sb.A.4.b.’ in the OED states that “The use of the prep. to rather than from after averse and its derivatives”. Then, referring to Johnson’s view mentioned above, the sub-entry also reads: [...] although condemned by Johnson as etymologically improper, is justified by the consideration that these words express a mental relation analogous to that indicated by hostile, contrary, repugnant, hostility, opposition, dislike, and naturally take the same constitution. Aversion in the sense of an action, which would be properly followed by from, is now obsolete.

Incidentally, the passage “these words express a mental relation analogous to that indicated by hostile, contrary, repugnant, hostility, opposition, dislike” in this description has resemblance to part of Webster’s statement above, which was made more than 60 years before the first edition of the OED, “This word [averse] [...] like its kindred terms, hatred, dislike, contrary, repugnant, &c. should be followed by to”. Johnson’s adherence to the collocation averse from seems to have affected his view of other collocations. One example is disgust from. He provided the following two sub-entries on disgust: J: To DISGUST. v.a. 2 and 3. 2. To strike with dislike; to offend. It is variously constructed with at or with. If a man were disgusted at marriage, he would never recommend it to his friend. Atterbury. Those unenlarged souls are disgusted with the wonders which the microscope has discovered. Watt’s Impr. of the Mind.

165 3. To produce aversion: with from. What disgusts me from having to do with answer-jobbers is, that they have no conscience. Swift.

Webster approved of the contents of the first sub-entry above, but opposed that of the second. He stated: W: DISGUST, v.t. 2. To displease; to offend the mind or moral taste; with at or with; as, to be disgusted at foppery, or with vulgar manners. To disgust from is unusual and hardly legitimate.

Johnson’s selection of the preposition from for averse seems to signify that he tended to think of adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations in terms of the etymologies of words. Webster seems to have been antithetical to it. As discussed in Section 1.5.4, Webster spent twenty years studying etymology, but his selection of to for averse may imply that he attached relatively more importance to the usage of words. In this regard, the last sentence in the entry on impatient in his Dictionary seems to signify his basic view of adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations: W: IMPATIENT, a. This word is followed by of, at, for, or under. We are impatient of restraint, or of wrongs; impatient at the delay of expected good; impatient for the return of a friend, or for the arrival of the mail; impatient under evils of any kind. The proper use of these particles can be learnt only by practice or observation.

(2) independent on vs. independent of Concerning the prepositions after independent, Johnson explained as follows, supplying 3 citations: J: INDEPENDENT. adj. 1. Not depending; not supported by any other; not relying on another; not controlled. It is used with on, of, or from before the object; of which on seems most proper, since we say to depend on, and consequently dependent on. Creation must needs infer providence, and God’s making the world irrefragably proves that he governs it too; or that a being of dependent nature remains nevertheless independent upon him in that respect. South’s Sermons. Since all princes of independent government are in a state of nature, the world never was without men in that state. Locke. The town of St. Gaul is a protestant republick, independent of the abbot, and under the protection of the cantons. Addis.

The second citation in which any preposition is put after independent seems to have been supplied to illustrate the sense of the word and only the first and third citations seem to illustrate the usage of the collocation. In contrast to Johnson’s view expressed in the sub-entry above, Webster stated the following:

166 W: INDEPENDENT, a. 8. Pertaining to an independent or congregational church. It is followed by of or on, both of which are well authorized. On is most conformable to analogy, for it always follows depend, but of is most common.

When the opinions of the two lexicographers are compared, it can safely be said that Johnson attached more importance to analogy, and Webster more usage. The OED seems to be in favour of Webster’s view again. In the entry ‘independent. a. and sb.’, it reads that of is the appropriate preposition for independent and that on, upon and from are earlier usages. (3) mad for vs. mad after Concerning the prepositions used with mad, Johnson provided the following sub-entry, in which citations from the Bible, Dryden and Thomas Rymer are supplied: J: MAD. adj. 2. Over-run with any violent or unreasonable desire; with on, after, of, perhaps better for, before the object of desire. It is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols. Jer. l.38. The world is running mad after farce, the extremity of bad poetry, or rather the judgment that is fallen upon dramatick writing. Dryden’s Pref. to Cleomenes. The people are not so very mad of acorns, but that they could be content to eat the bread of civil persons. Rymer.

Webster’s counterpart begins as follows: W: MAD, a. 4. Inflamed to excess with desire; excited with violent and unreasonable passion or appetite; infatuated; followed properly by after. The world is running mad after farce, the extremity of bad poetry. Dryden. “Mad upon their idols,” would be better rendered, “Mad after their idols.” Jer. l.

Here in this sub-entry, Webster borrowed Johnson’s citation from Dryden which contains mad after and Johnson seems to have considered relatively inappropriate. Furthermore, Webster rephrased part of Johnson’s biblical citation so that they might conform to his own view. This may be regarded as an example which shows that Webster did not always approve of biblical phrases and sentences. (4) believe in vs. believe on/upon Johnson provided the following sub-entries in the entry on believe: J: To BELIEVE. v.n. 3 and 4. 3. With the particle in ; to hold as an object of faith. Believe in the Lord your God, so shall you be established. 2 Chron. xx.20. 4. With the particle upon ; to trust; to place full confidence in; to rest upon with faith. To them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. John, i. 12.

167 In these sub-entries, Johnson strictly differentiated the use of believe in and that of believe upon. Webster treated the two collocations in a single sub-entry, and remarked as follows: W: BELIEVE, v.i. To have a firm persuasion of any thing. In some cases, to have full persuasion, approaching to certainty; in others, more doubt is implied. It is often followed by in or on, especially in the scriptures. To believe in, is to hold as the object of faith. “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” John xiv. To believe on, is to trust, to place full confidence in, to rest upon with faith. “To them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John i. Johnson. But there is no ground for much distinction.

Webster’s description signifies that he thought that the two collocations have the same sense. At the same time, in respect of the use of citations, it is notable that Webster replaced Johnson’s from 2 Chron. by one from John. While believe in appears only once in the former, it appears twice in the latter. Besides, the latter is short and structurally simpler as compared with the former. (5) comment upon vs. comment on Johnson stated the following at the beginning of the entry on comment: J: To COMMENT. v.n. To annotate; to write notes upon an author; to expound; to explain; with upon before the thing explained.

Following these remarks, he supplied 4 citations to illustrate his interpretation: citations from Shakespeare and Sir William Temple in which comment upon is included, and those from Herbert and Dryden in which comment on is included. In response to this practice, Webster stated the following: W: COMMENT, v.i. 1. To write notes on the works of an author, with a view to illustrate his meaning, or to explain particular passages; to explain; to expound; to annotate; followed by on. We say, to comment on an author or on his writings.

According to the contents of the relevant sub-entry (‘comment sb.2a.A.’) in the OED, either upon or on can be used with comment, and there is no difference between the sense of comment upon and that of comment on. However, Webster, who seems to have preferred on to upon, remarked in his entry on on that “Upon is used in the same sense with on, often with elegance, and frequently without necessity or advantage”. It was discussed in Section 4.5.6 that Webster modified a biblical phrase “Woe vnto them that ioyne house to house” and wrote “Woe to them that join house to house”, based on his recognition that unto “expresses no more than to” and that the same word “is found in writers of former times, but is entirely obsolete”. The fact that Webster selected comment on rather than comment upon may be regarded as another piece of evidence that proves his preference for language as a medium of communication, as discussed in Section 1.5.3.

168 (6) invest in vs. invest with Johnson treated invest in and invest with in a single sub-entry as shown below: J: To INVEST. v.a. 1. To dress; to clothe; to array. When it has two accusatives it has in or with before the thing. Their gesture sad, Invest in lank lean cheeks and war-worn coats, Presented them unto the gazing moon, So many horrid ghosts. Shakesp. Henry V. Thou with a mantle didst invest The rising world of waters. Milton. Let thy eyes shine forth in their full lustre; Invest them with thy loveliest smiles, put on Thy choicest looks. Denham’s Sophy.

In this sub-entry, Johnson did not differentiate invest in and invest with. Webster’s practice differed from this. He provided a sub-entry for each of the collocations and illustrated their usage by means of invented examples, as follows: W: INVEST, v.t. 1 and 7. 1. To clothe; to dress; to put garments on; to array; usually and most correctly followed by with, before the thing put on; as, to invest one with a mantle or robe. In this sense, it is used chiefly in poetry and elevated prose, not in colloquial discourse. 7. To clothe money in something permanent or less fleeting; as, to invest money in funded or bank stock; to invest it in lands or goods. In this application, it is always followed by in.

In these two sub-entries, Webster fairly clearly distinguished between the two combinations. The OED goes into detail about the prepositions used with invest in its entry: To clothe, robe, or envelop (a person) in or with a garment or article of clothing; to dress or adorn. To cover or surround as with a garment. Const. with. To clothe or endue with attributes, qualities, or a character. Const. with, also in, into. To clothe with or in the insignia of an office; hence, with the dignity itself; to install in an office or rank with the customary rites or ceremonies. To establish (a person) in the possession of any office, position, property, etc.; to endow or furnish with power, authority, or privilege. Const. in, with (also †of, into, unto). To settle, secure, or vest (a right or power) in (a person). Const. in (†with, upon).



This description is partly in line with Webster’s. It may safely be said that Webster excelled over Johnson in distinguishing between the two collocations.

7.5

Webster’s Interest in Indicating the Collocations

Table 19 in Section 7.2 indicates that Webster disregarded five of Johnson’s treatments of adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations: abstain from, apply to, argue

169 with/against, count upon, object to/against. The reason for this is unknown, but the same table also indicates the fact that Webster added 20 new descriptions of the collocations: account for, acquaint of, act upon, agree to/with, aware of, certain of, compatible with/to, concerned with/in, consist in/of, delighted with, depend from/on/upon, impatient of/at/for/under, insist on, intent to/on, pleased in/with, reason with, recover of/from, sick of, suffer with/from, work on. This fact clearly signifies Webster’s strong interest in prepositional usage. The following are some examples of sub-entries in which his newlyadded descriptions are given: W: DELIGHTED, pp. 1. Greatly pleased; rejoiced; followed by with. That ye may be delighted with the abundance of her glory. Is. lxvi. W: CONSIST, v.i. 2 and 3. 2. To stand or be; to lie; to be contained; followed by in. The beauty of epistolary writing consists in ease and freedom. 3. To be composed; followed by of. A landscape should consist of a variety of scenery. W: RECOVER, v.i. 1. To regain health after sickness; to grow well; followed by of or from. Go, inquire of Balzebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease. 2 Kings i.

These examples also show that Webster utilized biblical passages to illustrate the collocations genuinely in the light of English usage, irrelevant of his faith. To illustrate newly added descriptions of the collocations, Webster occasionally made use of Johnson’s citations. Examples are: J: SICK. adj. 4. Disgusted. He was not so sick of his master as of his work. L’Estrange. ---------W: SICK, a. 2. Disgusted; having a strong dislike to; with of, as, to be sick of flattery; to be sick of a country life. He was not so sick of his master as of his work. L’Estrange. J: To DEPEND. v.n. 1. To hang from. From the frozen beard Long isicles depend, and crackling sounds are heard. Dryden. ---------W: DEPEND, v.i. 1. To hang; to be sustained by being fastened or attached to something above; followed by from. From the frozen beard Long icicles depend. Dryden.

170

7.6

Generalization of the Analysis

Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples supplied for the treatment of adjectivepreposition and verb-preposition collocations reflect their view of prepositions well. In terms of their sources of citations, Johnson quoted from Dryden most frequently, as he did in entries on prepositions; such a practice is not seen in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency. It may safely be said that this fact ensures the probability that Johnson regarded Dryden’s prepositional usage as more sophisticated than Shakespeare’s and that of other men of letters. As to Webster, he quoted from the Bible more often than Johnson, as he did in entries on prepositions; he did not do this in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency. However, in Webster’s case, it should be noted that he modified a biblical phrase in treating mad upon/after; such a practice was also seen in Section 4.5.6. Therefore, he can be regarded as having made use of biblical phrases and sentences which were familiar to the readers of his Dictionary rather than considering prepositional usage in the Bible as ideal. How, then, did Webster’s selection of prepositions differ from Johnson’s? As his adherence to from for averse shows, Johnson tended to select prepositions based on the etymologies of relevant words. In contrast to this, Webster, although he had enthusiastically studied etymology, preferred to select prepositions according to usage. In this respect, Webster may be said to have been partly in line with Priestley whom I discussed in Section 3.2.2, although Webster did not totally abandon prescriptivism as his treatment of invest in/with indicates. From a different viewpoint, it may be said that Johnson and Webster were, respectively, forerunners of modern lexicographers treating verb-preposition and adjective-preposition collocations. That is, Stefania Nuccorini (2003:366-387) has analysed eight dictionaries of English collocations in which the BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations (1997) and the Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English (2002) are included. Nuccorini (2003:373) has commented that the former is useful for its usage notes and illustrative phrases, as well as its information on grammatical collocations in the sense of both complementation and valency, though it is not corpus-based. As to the latter, she (2003:378) has said that it is based on a corpus, covering a shortcoming of the former. If Nuccorini's analyses have been correctly made, such characteristics in the two dictionaries are also included in Johnson's and Webster's dictionaries, as observed so far. In addition, Nuccorini (2003:367) has further remarked that “often the dictionaryintended addresses do not coincide with the actual users and that, on the other hand, different roles are often performed by the same individual (for example a teacher and an advanced user, a linguist and a translator) who might adopt different perspectives”, referring to modern English collocational dictionaries. On the assumption that this opinion is correct, such a situation is seen as early as in the difference between Johnson and Webster in their view of some verb-preposition and adjective-preposition collocations.

8:

Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries and Primary Verbs

8.1

Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries

8.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries The purpose of this section lies in the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice of using verbal examples in their treatment of modal auxiliaries. Both of them frequently referred to the grammatical categories of mood, tense, number and person, supplying verbal examples, in treating the words. The modal auxiliaries referred to here are shall, will, should, would, may, can, might, could and must. These 9 words are usually regarded as function words. Randolph Quirk et al. (1985:135-140) called them ‘central modals’, and distinguished them from ‘marginal modals’, dare, need, ought to and used to. The modal auxiliaries exclusively function as auxiliary verbs without the help of the preposition to, while ‘marginal modals’ often require the preposition and can sometimes be used as principal verbs. In conjunction with modal auxiliaries, the concept of what is termed ‘modality’ has to be taken into account. With regard to this term, I will adopt the definition given by Quirk et al.: At its most general, modality may be defined as the manner in which the meaning of a clause is qualified so as to reflect the speaker’s judgment of the likelihood of the proposition it expresses being true. As with terms like present and past, this semantic definition makes only an imperfect match with the correspondingly-named formal category, that of modal auxiliary verbs. None the less, it will serve to indicate in general terms the function which these verbs perform in the language. (Quirk et al. 1985:219)

Giving this definition, they have pointed out two types of modalities: (a) Those such as ‘permission’, ‘obligation’, and ‘volition’ which involve some kind of intrinsic human control over events, and (b) Those such as ‘possibility’, ‘necessity’, and ‘prediction’, which do not primarily involve human control of events, but do typically involve human judgment of what is or is not likely to happen. (Quirk et al. 1985:219)

Both Johnson and Webster treated all modal auxiliaries in their dictionaries. However, there are problems to be solved before starting the analysis of their treatment of the words. That is, they did not think of modal auxiliaries as modern grammarians do. In the first place, they did not necessarily regard the 9 words to be analysed in this section as modal auxiliaries. Besides, they had different opinions from each other about what parts of speech the words belonged to. Therefore, it is necessary here to recognize how Johnson and Webster thought of the words. The table below shows the situation. In this table, the descriptions in frames are taken from relevant entries in their dictionaries.

172 Table 22: Johnson’s and Webster’s View of Modal Auxiliaries Entry-words can could

Johnson’s Dictionary v.n. the imperfect preterite of can.

may might must shall should

auxiliary verb. the preterite of may. verb imperfect. v. defective v.n.

will would

v.a. The preterite of will.

Webster’s Dictionary v.i. The past tense of can, according to our customary arrangement in grammar. verb aux. pret. of may. v.i. It is used as an auxiliary verb. v.i., verb auxiliary The preterit of shall, but now used as an auxiliary verb, either in the past time or conditional present. v.t. pret. of will.

This table indicates that both Johnson and Webster basically regarded can as an intransitive verb and will as a transitive verb. As to must, shall and should, their views differ from each other. Additionally, their use of grammatical terms make the problem more complicated. For instance, Johnson used the term ‘v. defective’ in the entry on shall. Modern grammarians usually use this term to refer to a type of word which does not have -ing and s forms, as Ralph Long (1961:38) has done; among other modern grammarians, Long has especially detailed the use of defective verbs. As to Johnson’s definition of the term, he provided the following entry in his Dictionary: J: DEFECTIVE Verb [in grammar.] A verb which wants some of its tenses.

This definition seems to be the same as that of modern grammarians’. However, modern grammarians regard not only shall but also all other modal auxiliaries as defective verbs; Long (1961:38) has also done this. Johnson did not think in this way. Furthermore, it is necessary to take into account changes in the language. As mentioned above, Johnson thought that will was basically a transitive verb; he even added the preposition to to indicate the entry-word of its relevant entry as ‘To WILL’. This is because will was also used as a principal verb at Johnson’s time. Johnson provided 5 sub-entries on will, but in only 1 of the 5 he treated the word as a modal auxiliary. This situation is almost the same in Webster. Webster provided 7 sub-entries in its corresponding entry, and in only 1 of the 7 he treated will as a modal auxiliary. Because of this fact, it becomes required to select sub-entries relevant to the purpose of this section, instead of trying to observe the whole of entries on relevant words which may cover more than modal auxiliaries. There is one more problem. When such relevant sub-entries are browsed through, both Johnson and Webster are seen to have depended quite heavily on invented examples to illustrate the usage of modal auxiliaries. The degree of their dependence on this type of example in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries is apparently far higher than that in entries on prepositions and prepositional adverbs. For this reason, in producing the table of the frequency of verbal examples within the range of sub-entries on modal auxiliaries in the

173 two dictionaries, it becomes necessary to show the number of invented examples as well as refer to the number of citations. In the following table, the letters S and C indicate the number of relevant sub-entries and citations, and figures in parentheses that of invented examples.

Table 23: Citations and Invented Examples in Sub-entries on Modal Auxiliaries in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Entry-words can could may might must

Johnson S C 4 4(5) 1 2 5 7(1) 1 1 1 5

Webster S C 10 9(20) 10 1(16) 4 2(9) 2 0(1) 2 1(4)

Entry-words shall should will would -----

Johnson S C 7 3(6) 6 7(4) 1 0(5) 8 23(3) -----

Webster S C 7 2(20) 7 2(12) 1 0(5) 1 0(8) -----

This table reveals several notable facts. In Johnson’s case, the number of citations supplied in the sub-entries on shall is smaller than that of the sub-entries. This means that Johnson did not supply citations in each of the sub-entries, signifying that he did not necessarily explain the senses and usage of the modal auxiliary with the help of citations. Besides, Johnson supplied invented examples in the sub-entries on can, may, shall, should, will and would; especially in the sub-entries on can, shall and will, invented examples outnumber citations. Actually, Johnson heavily depended on invented examples rather than citations in explaining the senses and usage of modal auxiliaries, and did not supply citations in more than half of the relevant sub-entries. This will be clarified in the following sub-sections, but it may be beneficial to refer to some widely-accepted opinions on Johnson’s citations beforehand which will be proved incorrect. For instance, James Murray, with a belief that Johnson had supplied citations or at least indicated the sources of citations in all entries and sub-entries in his Dictionary, claimed the following in 1900: Only where he had no quotations did Johnson insert words from Bailey’s folio, or other source, with Dict. as the authority. (Murray 1900:39)

As far as sub-entries on modal auxiliaries are concerned, however, Johnson quite often did not indicate even sources of citations. And Noel Osselton once remarked as follows: To Dr Johnson remains the glory of having been the first English compiler to have provided illustrative quotations systematically for all (or at least the vast bulk) of words entered. (Osselton 1995:59)

If quotation or citation means, as Reinhard Hartmann and Gregory James (1998:20) claimed, “a source of lexicographical data, verified in the form of an extract from a text”, it will be clearly detected in the following sub-sections that Johnson did not supply

174 “illustrative quotations systematically” in many sub-entries which are vital for the explanation of the senses and usage of modal auxiliaries. As for Webster, Table 23 indicates that he supplied 94 invented examples and 17 citations in total in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries. The table also illustrates that Webster supplied more citations than Johnson in the treatment of can, showing that Webster was not always less dependent on citations than Johnson. Besides, for the modal auxiliaries can, could, might and must, Webster provided more sub-entries than Johnson. This implies that Webster’s treatment of these modal auxiliaries is generally more detailed than Johnson’s. With regard to the sources of citations in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries, Johnson quoted 52 phrases and sentences from 19 sources shown in the following table:

Table 24: Sources of Johnson’s Citations in Sub-entries on Modal Auxiliaries Sources

Freq.

Sources

Freq. 3

Sources Swift

Freq. 1

Sources Grew

Freq.

Shakespeare

8

Sidney

1

Dryden

8

Hammond

2

Ray

1

Allestree

1

Bacon

8

Bible

2

Prior

1

Daniel

1

Locke

5

Ben Jonson

2

Milton

1

Bournet

1

Waller

3

Addison

2

L’Estrange

1

-----

---

Here, Johnson is found to have ranged extensively over the literature for a small number of citations. As for Webster, he quoted 17 phrases and sentences from 5 sources: 13 from the Bible, and 1 each from Dryden, a translation of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius for which the translator is not indicated, Bournet whose first name is indeterminable, and Addison. It is seen here that Webster borrowed few of Johnson’s citations in treating modal auxiliaries, very unlike the treatment of other types of words analysed so far in preceding chapters.

8.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries on the Modal Auxiliaries Shall and Will As revealed in the analysis in the previous sub-section, both Johnson and Webster have in common that they frequently supplied invented examples in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries. However, they are observed to have handled the words in various ways; respective sub-entries reflect the lexicographers’ unique view of the usage of relevant words. This means that the usual practices in their ways of supplying verbal examples in the sub-entries can only be determined with some difficulty. For this reason, I will hereafter provide 4 sub-sections to proceed with the analyses, taking account of the modalities of each modal auxiliary. Specifically, I will analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of shall and will in this sub-section, that of should and would in Section 8.1.3, that of may, can, might and could in Section 8.1.4, and that of must in Section 8.1.5.

175 In general, Johnson treated modal auxiliaries quite differently from verbs of high frequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. That is, in addition to depending little on citations in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries, Johnson occasionally provided detailed introductory remarks in them, which are rarely seen in entries on other types of words in his Dictionary. This can be said especially about the entry on shall. In the introductory remarks in the entry, Johnson referred to the tense which shall denotes, quoting a sentence from Chaucer, and mentioned the difference between the word and should as follows: In Chaucer, the faithe I shall to God, means the faith I owe to God : thence it became a sign of the future tense. The French use devoir, dois, doit, in the same manner, with a kind of future signification; and the Swedes have skall, and the Islanders skal, in the same sense. It has no tenses but shall future, and should imperfect.

Following such words, Johnson provided 7 sub-entries which are all related to shall as a modal auxiliary. In 5 sub-entries out of the 7, Johnson illustrated the usage of the word with invented examples without supplying a citation at all: J: SHALL. v. defective. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. 1. I SHALL love. It will so happen that I must love; I am resolved to love. 2. SHALL I love? Will it be permitted me to love? Will you permit me to love? Will it happen that I must love? 3. Thou SHALT love. I command thee to love; it is permitted thee to love: [in poetry or solemn diction] it will happen that thou must love. 4. SHALT thou love? Will it happen that thou must love? Will it be permitted to thee to love? 6. SHALL he love? Is it permitted him to love? In solemn language, Will it happen that he must love?

In the seventh sub-entry, Johnson commented on person and number relevant to the word. He did not exemplify the comment even with an invented example: J: SHALL. v. defective. 7. The plural persons follow the signification of the singulars.

The fifth sub-entry is an exceptional case. Only in this sub-entry, he illustrated the usage of the word by citations: J: SHALL. v. defective. 5. He SHALL love. It will happen that he must love; it is commanded him that he love. It is a mind, that shall remain a poison where it is. -- Shall remain! Hear you this triton of the minnows? Mark you His absolute shall ? Shakesp. Coriolanus. See Romulus the great: This prince a priestess of your blood shall bear, And like his sire in arms he shall appear. Dryden’s AEn. That he shall receive no benefit from Christ, is the affirmation whereon all his despair is founded; and the one way of removing this dismal apprehension, is to convince him that Christ’s

176 death, and the benefits thereof, either do, or, if he perform the condition required of him, shall certainly belong to him. Hammond’s Fundamentals.

Johnson must have been careful in selecting these citations. This is clear from the fact that the entry-word shall is included in almost all clauses of the citations. Besides, two of the three citations are from poetry. In the introductory remarks on the entry for the word, where he mentioned a difference between shall and should as referred to earlier in this sub-section, Johnson also commented as follows, praying for the success of his explanation of the usage of shall among poets: The explanation of shall, which foreigners and provincials confound with will, is not easy; and the difficulty is increased by the poets, who sometimes give to shall an emphatical sense of will ; but I shall endeavour, crassa Minervâ, to show the meaning of shall in the future tense.

The two citations from poetry in the fifth sub-entry are thought to reflect Johnson’s consciousness as revealed in the comments. Incidentally, the comments indicate that Johnson assumed that foreigners would also use his Dictionary. As for Webster, he treated shall quite differently from Johnson in the entry on the word. In the introductory remarks there, which Webster also provided, he expressed the following opinion about the orthography of shall: It ought to be written shal, as the original has one l only, and it has one only in shalt and should.

This opinion will be hardly acceptable to modern grammarians. However, the contents of sub-entries which follow the opinion is important to know Webster’s view of the word. In 4 out of 7 sub-entries which he provided, Webster stated the following, supplying invented examples for each: W: SHALL, v.i., verb auxiliary. 1-4. 1. Thus in the first person, shall simply foretells or declares what will take place; as, I or we shall ride to town on Monday. This declaration simply informs another of a fact that is to take place. 2. In the second and third persons, shall implies a promise, command or determination. “You shall receive your wages,” “he shall receive his wages,” imply that you or he ought to receive them; but usage gives to these phrases the force of a promise in the person uttering them. 3. Shall I go, shall he go, interrogatively asks for permission or direction. But shall you go, asks for information of another’s intention. 4. But after another verb, shall, in the third person, simply foretells. He says that he shall leave town to-morrow. So also in the second person; you say that you shall ride to-morrow.

The words in the first and second sub-entries above are parts of fairly long descriptions, respectively; the first sub-entry originally consists of 29 lines and the second 13 lines. The contents of these 4 sub-entries clearly shows that Webster focused on the usage and modalities of shall. In this respect, Webster treated the word almost the same as Johnson did. However, it can also be said that Webster’s account of the word is more detailed than Johnson’s.

177 The significance of Webster’s treatment of shall lies not only in the length of his explanation. Webster referred to the use of shall in the subjunctive mood, which was different from Johnson’s practice. In the fifth sub-entry on shall, Webster stated: W: SHALL, v.i., verb auxiliary. 5. After if, and some verbs which express condition or supposition, shall, in all the persons, simply foretells; as, If I shall say, or we shall say, / Thou shalt say, ye or you shall say, / He shall say, they shall say.

This sub-entry also shows that he was conscious of person in the use of shall, and he illustrated his view of the usage of shall by means of invented examples. Furthermore, the entry on shall in Webster’s Dictionary reveals his aspect as an etymologist. At the beginning of the first sub-entry in the entry, Webster quoted 2 sentences from Old English literature, which are not seen in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary, to show the original use of the word: W: SHALL, v.i., verb auxiliary. 1. Shall is primarily in the present tense, and in our mother tongue was followed by a verb in the infinitive, like other verbs. “Ic sceal fram the beon gefullod.” I have need to be baptized of thee. Matt. iii. “Ic nu sceal singan sar-cwidas.” I must now sing mournful songs. Boethius.

However, Webster was not a person clinging to the archaic usage of the word. Following the remarks above, he stated: We still use shall and should before another verb in the infinitive, without the sign to; but the signification of shall is considerably deflected from its primitive sense. It is now treated as a mere auxiliary to other verbs, serving to form some of the tenses.

Then, he provided 60 lines of comments on the senses and usage of shall at his time. It can safely be said that Webster as an etymologist and Webster as a descriptive grammarian is integrated here in Webster as a lexicographer. With regard to the entry on will, out of 5 sub-entries Johnson provided there, only one concerns the word as a modal auxiliary. The following is its contents: J: To WILL. v.a. 5. It is one of the signs of the future tense; of which it is difficult to show or limit the signification. I will come. I am determined to come; importing choice. Thou wilt come. It must be so that thou must come; importing necessity. Wilt thou come? Hast thou determined to come? importing choice. He will come. He is resolved to come; or it must be that he must come, importing either choice or necessity. It will come. It must so be that it must come; importing necessity. The plural follows the analogy of the singular.

Johnson here referred to person in the use of the word, and did not supply a single citation, depending entirely on invented examples. In other words, supplying invented examples which begin with thou, he and it, he explained what will signified in each of them.

178 As to Webster, he provided only one sub-entry to explain the senses and usage of the word as a modal auxiliary, as well. This may give the impression that Webster followed Johnson’s practice in treating the modal auxiliary. However, the fact is that Webster uniquely exercised his ingenuity in the sub-entry, and even commented on the modality of the word which Johnson did not refer to. The following is the contents of the sub-entry in Webster’s Dictionary: W: WILL, v.t. 7. Will is used as an auxiliary verb, and a sign of the future tense. It has different significations in different persons. 1. I will go, is a present promise to go; and with an emphasis on will, it expresses determination. 2. Thou wilt go, you will go, express foretelling; simply stating an event that is to come. 3. He will go, is also a foretelling. The use of will in the plural, is the same. We will, promises; ye will, they will, foretell.

In terms of verbal examples, Webster made use of invented examples and did not supply a citation there. And he was also conscious of person relevant to the use of the word. These are almost exactly the same as Johnson’s case. At the same time, however, Webster divided the sub-entry for the convenience of reference for the readers of his Dictionary. Besides, Webster mentioned the modality of simple future, as well as that of volitional future, using the word ‘foretelling’ and supplying invented examples for the purpose. By contrast, Johnson only referred to the modality of volitional future; to be concrete, he only indicated that will denoted choice and necessity. The modal auxiliaries shall and will basically function to express simple future and volitional future. In the sub-entries on shall, Johnson referred to the two types of future, but in the sub-entry on will, he only mentioned volitional future. Differently from this practice, Webster detailed the two types of future in the sub-entries relevant to shall and will. This indicates that Webster’s explanation of the usage of the two modal auxiliaries is more elaborate than Johnson’s. This can be confirmed by another fact in relevant sub-entries. That is, Webster indicated the historical change in the use of shall. Additionally, Webster also mentioned the use of shall in the subjunctive mood, which Johnson did not. Certainly, Johnson cared about person in relation to the usage of shall and will, supplying invented examples rather than depending on citations. In spite of such efforts, however, his grammatical consciousness hardly matched up to Webster’s, as far as the two words are concerned.

8.1.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries on the Modal Auxiliaries Should and Would As analysed in Section 8.1.1, Johnson indicated that should was an intransitive verb, but he was also fully aware of the word as a modal auxiliary. He treated the functions of the word as a modal auxiliary in 6 out of 8 sub-entries. The following are contents of 5 sub-entries out of the 6:

179 J: SHOULD. v.n. 1-5. 1. This is a kind of auxiliary verb used in the conjunctive mood, of which the signification is not easily fixed. 2. I SHOULD go. It is my business or duty to go. 3. If I SHOULD go. If it happens that I go. 4. Thou SHOULD’ST go. Thou oughtest to go. 5. If thou SHOULD’ST go. If it happens that thou goest.

It can be seen here that Johnson commented on the use of should for the expression of the subjunctive mood, or the ‘conjunctive mood’ in his term, and that he illustrated the comments with invented examples, not citations. In the sixth sub-entry, he mentioned the use of the word in relation to the category of grammatical number: J: SHOULD. v.n. 6. The same significations are found in all the other persons singular and plural.

Then, in this sixth sub-entry, Johnson supplied the following 5 citations: Let not a desperate action more engage you Than safety should. Ben. Johnson’s Catiline. Some praises come of good wishes and respects, when by telling men what they are, they represent to them what they should be. Bacon. To do thee honour I will shed their blood, Which the just laws, if I were faultless, should. Waller. So subjects love just kings, or so they should. Dryden. I conclude, that things are not as they should be. Swift.

It is evident that Johnson supplied these 5 citations to illustrate his comments on person and number. That is, the subjects of should in the citations can be divided into 3 types: first person singular, third person singular and third person plural. It is obvious here that Johnson tried to show that the modality of should does not vary according to person and number of its subjects. As to Webster, he provided introductory remarks in the entry on should, which Johnson had not done in its corresponding entry: W: SHOULD, The preterit of shall. “He should have paid the debt at the time the note became due.” Should here denotes past time. “I should ride to town this day if the weather would permit.” Here should expresses present or future time conditionally. In the second and third persons, it denotes obligation or duty, as in the first example above.

This statement shows that Webster paid attention to tense and person in relation to the use of should. This can also be confirmed in the following sub-entries on the word: W: SHOULD, The preterit of shall. 1-5. 1. I should go. When should in this person is uttered without emphasis, it declares simply that an event would take place, on some condition or under other circumstances. But when expressed with emphasis, should in this person denotes obligation, duty or determination.

180 2. Thou shouldst/You should go. Without emphasis, should, in the second person, is nearly equivalent to ought; you ought to go, it is your duty, you are bound to go. [See Shall.] With emphasis, should expresses determination in the speaker conditionally to compel the person to act. “If I had the care of you, you should go, whether willing or not.” 3. He should go. Should, in the third person, has the same force as in the second. 4. If I should, if you should, if he should, &c. denote a future contingent event. 5. After should, the principal verb is sometimes omitted, without obscuring the sense. So subjects love just kings, or so they should. Dryden. That is, so they should love them.

At the same time, Webster’s use of the citation from Dryden in the fifth sub-entry here, to which he added his own paraphrase, is also significant. This citation was copied from the entry on should in Johnson’s Dictionary. As already revealed in this sub-section, Johnson supplied the citation to show the usage of the word in relation to number. Webster made use of it to illustrate his explanation of the case where the principal verb is omitted after should. This also indicates Webster’s interest in elliptical expressions, which I discussed in Sections 5.1.4 and 6.2.4. Webster further treated the use of should for the denotation of ‘actual existence’; this use of should had not been mentioned by Johnson. In the seventh sub-entry on the word, Webster stated the following: W: SHOULD, The preterit of shall. 7. “We think it strange that stones should fall from the aerial regions.” In this use should implies that stones do fall. In all similar phrases, should implies the actual existence of the fact, without a condition or supposition.

This use of should has occasionally interested modern grammarians. Otto Jespersen (1933:287) called it the ‘emotional should’’ and Quirk et al. (1985:234-235) and R. Close (1981:120) the ‘putative should’. Quirk et al. (1985:234) have claimed that “In using should, the speaker entertains, as it were, some ‘putative’ world, recognizing that it may well exist or come into existence”. Though brief and limited, Webster’s description of the use of the word is clear, and he also supplied verbal examples there. In addition to the points revealed above, it is also to be noted that Webster did not treat should only in its own entry. In the entry on shall, he provided 2 sub-entries for the explanation of should as a modal auxiliary: W: SHALL, v.i. 6. Should, in the first person, implies a conditional event. “I should have written a letter yesterday, had I not been interrupted.” Or it expresses obligation, and that in all the persons. I should,/ Thou shouldst,/ He should,/ You should, have paid the bill on demand; it was my duty, your duty, his duty to pay the bill on demand, but it was not paid. W: SHALL, v.i. 7. Should, though properly the past tense of shall, is often used to express a contingent future event; as, if it should rain to-morrow; if you should go to London next week; if he should arrive within a month. In like manner after though, grant, admit, allow.

181 Here, Webster referred to the use of should as a sign of ‘conditional events’ and that of ‘contingent future’, illustrating the use with invented examples. Johnson did not treat such use of should anywhere in entries on should and shall. Moreover, Webster detailed the use of should in relation to person in the 2 sub-entries there. Certainly, Johnson diligently tried to clarify the usage of should, but Webster by far surpassed him in this respect. With regard to would, Johnson’s treatment of the word is fairly elaborate as compared with that of should. In the first sub-entry on the word, Johnson commented on mood, person and number. Besides, he supplied invented examples, as well as citations, to illustrate the comments; he supplied 3 invented examples and 2 citations in total. The following is his comment on mood which the word denotes; he supplied one citation with it: J: WOULD. The preterite ofwill. 1. It is generally used as an auxiliary verb with an infinitive, to which it gives the force of the subjunctive mood. If God’s providence did not so order it, cheats would daily be committed, which would justle private men out of their rights, and unhinge states. Ray.

The second sub-entry on the word concerns person; he supplied three invented examples here, paraphrasing each of them: J: WOULD. The preterite of will. 2. I WOULD do it. My resolution is that it should be done by me. Thou WOU’LDEST do it. Such must be the consequence to thee. He WOULD or it would. This must be the consequence to him or it.

In the third sub-entry, Johnson referred to number; he supplied one citation there as follows: J: WOULD. The preterite of will. 3. The plural as the singular. He by the rules of this own mind, could construe no other end of mens doings but self-seeking, suddenly feared what they could do, and as suddenly suspected what they would do, and as suddenly hated them, as having both might and mind so to do. Sidney.

Webster, by contrast, did not divide the entry on would into sub-entries. However, his account of the word is never less detailed than Johnson’s. Additionally, Webster’s recognition and treatment of the modal auxiliary were essentially different from Johnson’s. Webster began his explanation of would as follows: W: WOULD, pret. of will. Would is used as an auxiliary verb in conditional forms of speech. “I would go, if I could.” This form of expression denotes will or resolution, under a conditional or supposition. You would go,/ He would go, denote simply an event, under a condition or supposition.

182 Here, Webster supplied the if-clause in one of his 3 invented examples. With this practice, he indicated the use of would as a sign of volitional future. The second and third examples are related to the word as indicating simple future. Then, he continued to say that: The condition implied in would is not always expressed. “By pleasure and pain, I would be understood to mean what delights or molests us - ”; that is, if it should be asked what I mean by pleasure and pain, I would thus explain what I wish to have understood. In this form of expression, which is very common, there seems to be an implied allusion to an inquiry, or to the supposition of something not expressed.

The core of this passage lies in the citation “By pleasure and pain [...] what delights or molests us -”. Actually, it is evident that Webster borrowed this citation from Johnson. In the fourth sub-entry on would in his Dictionary, Johnson had supplied the following citation from John Locke to illustrate the definition “Was or am resolved; wish or wished to”: By pleasure and pain I would be understood to signify, whatsoever delights or molests us, whether from the thoughts of our minds, or any thing operating on our bodies. Locke.

Very clearly, Webster used the citation to make the use of would explicit; this is something which Johnson only vaguely referred to. The relevant passage above shows that Webster also added his own paraphrase to the citation. Even when Webster did not provide a usage note, there are cases where the difference between Webster’s view of the modal auxiliary and Johnson’s are revealed by verbal examples. For instance, Johnson provided a sub-entry on would to show the ‘wrong’ use of the word. At the beginning of this sub-entry, Johnson stated the following, supplying some invented examples: J: WOULD. The preterite of will. 8. It has the signification of I wish, or I pray; this, I believe, is improper; and formed by a gradual corruption of the phrase, would God; which originally imported, that God would, might God will, might God decree ; from this phrase ill understood came, would to God ; thence, I would to God: and thence I would, or elliptically, would come to signify, I wish: and so it is used even in good authours, but ought not to be imitated.

This sub-entry suggests that Johnson thought that it was wrong to use would as a substitute for the principal verb wish. Under this statement, he supplied 9 citations in total to show how would had been used ‘incorrectly’: 2 each from Shakespeare and Dryden, and 1 each from Bacon, Ben Jonson, Samuel Daniel, Milton and Allestree. For instance, citations from Milton and Allestree are as follows: Would thou hadst hearken’d to my words, and stay’d With me, as I besought thee, when that strange Defuse of wand’ring, this unhappy morn, Possess’d thee. Milton’s Paradise Lost. Would God we might prevent the need of such unkindly expedients, and by a thankful sense of what we have, provide to conserve it. Decay of Piety.

183 We may note, in passing, that it was unusual for Johnson to criticize Allestree’s phrases and sentences from his Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety (1667). He quoted 19 times from this source within the range of entries on words for the letter L (see Section 4.1.1) and 2 times in entries on verbs of high frequency (see Section 5.1.2), but never did he censure phrases and sentences from this source. This is probably because Johnson approved of the contents of the work. His critical attitude about the sentence in the entry on would was manifestly caused by his view of the language. It can be said, therefore, that Johnson carefully selected the sources of citations in sub-entries on would as a modal auxiliary. Concerning the use of would as a substitute for wish, which Johnson criticized here, Webster also referred to it, copying one of Johnson’s invented examples. Differently from Johnson, however, Webster was not critical of the use. He seems to have regarded the use as acceptable. Webster simply stated: W: WOULD, pret. of will. Would has the sense of wish or pray, particularly in the phrases, “would to God,” “would God we had died in Egypt,” “I would that ye knew what conflict I have;” that is, I could wish such a thing, if the wish could avail. Here also there is an implied condition. Would is used also for wish to do, or to have. What wouldst thou? what would he?

The modal auxiliaries should and would are not merely preterites of shall and will. They also denote unique senses and modalities which are different from those of will and shall. Both Johnson and Webster were well aware of this, and they elaborately treated the words should and would based on their grammatical knowledge. Johnson diligently supplied invented examples and occasionally paraphrased them to indicate the usage of the words. This is an unusual practice for him. He did this especially to show the subjunctive-mood which the two words denote. He also supplied invented examples to illustrate his comments on person and number in relation to the usage of the words. In spite of such efforts, however, he was no match for Webster. Webster not only covered the contents of the whole of Johnson’s explanation about should and would, but also expounded on various usage of the words which Johnson did not refer to. Especially in sub-entries on should, Webster mentioned the use of the word which Quirk et al. termed the ‘putative should’. Webster supplied invented examples to illustrate the use, as he often did in explaining other uses of should and would.

8.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries on the Modal Auxiliaries May, Can, Might and Could In this sub-section, I will mainly analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s view of may and can and their ways of supplying verbal examples in relevant sub-entries. Concerning their treatment of might and could, I will discuss it after this task. With regard to may, Johnson divided the entry on the word into 5 sub-entries. Quite differently from the case of shall, will, should and would, he almost exclusively treated the senses, not the usage, of may. Johnson provided few usage notes and few invented examples in the sub-entries on may. Instead, he supplied 1 or 2 citations in each of the 5 sub-entries.

184 Strangely, Webster also treated may like Johnson did. Revealing his talent as a grammarian in sub-entries on other modal auxiliaries, as analysed in preceding sub-sections, Webster seldom commented on the usage of may in relevant sub-entries. In this situation, the only exceptional example is the fourth sub-entry on the word. Webster referred to the optative subjunctive there as follows: W: MAY, verb aux. 4. It is used in prayer and petitions to express desire. O may we never experience the evils we dread. So also in expressions of good will. May you live happily, and be a blessing to your country. It was formerly used for can, and its radical sense is the same.

It is seen in this sub-entry that Webster supplied an invented example “May you live happily”. Johnson had supplied the following citation in the fifth sub-entry on may in his Dictionary: J: MAY. auxiliary verb. 5. A word expressing desire. May you live happily and long for the service of your country. Dryden’s Dedicat. to the AEneis.

This citation from Dryden includes the phrase “May you live happily”. There is no knowing whether Webster referred to this citation or not when he mentioned the optative subjunctive. However, it can at least be said from a grammatical viewpoint that Webster slightly excelled Johnson by supplying the phrase in relation to mood. In contrast to the case of may, Johnson entered into the details of the usage of can. At the beginning of the entry on the word, Johnson made the following introductory remarks: J: CAN. v.n. [Introductory Remarks] It is sometimes, though rarely, used alone; but is in constant use as an expression of the potential mood; as, I can do, thou canst do, I could do, thou couldest do. It has no other terminations.

Then, he divided the entry into 4 sub-entries. The first sub-entry of these concerns the sense of the word, in which can is defined as “To be able; to have power”. However, in the second sub-entry, Johnson referred to the mood it denotes: J: CAN. v.n. 2. It expresses the potential mood; as, I can do it. If she can make me blest? She only can: Empire, and wealth, and all she brings beside, Are but the train and trappings of her love. Dryden.

In addition to an invented example, Johnson here supplied a citation in which 2 examples of relevant usage are documented. In the third sub-entry on can, Johnson indicated a difference between can and may in terms of mood, supplying only invented examples: J: CAN. v.n. 3. It is distinguished from may, as power from permission; I can do it; it is in my power: I may do it; it is allowed me: but, in poetry, they are confounded.

185 This sub-entry may give a reason why Johnson’s explanation of the usage of may was rather superficial. That is, there is a probability that he tried to compare the usage of may and can in the entry on can. The fourth sub-entry on can supports this probability. Johnson explained the types of principal verbs to be used with can and may here: J: CAN. v.n. 4. Can is used of the person with the verb active, where may is used; of the thing, with the verb passive; as, I can do it; it may be done.

Here again, Johnson exclusively supplied invented examples, not depending on a single citation. Compared with Johnson’s practice, Webster seems to have paid little attention to the usage of can. He provided a brief usage note of the word at the beginning of its relevant entry. The contents seems to be applicable to all modal auxiliaries. He said: W: CAN, v.i. Can in English is treated as an auxiliary verb, the sign of the infinitive being omitted, as in the phrases, I can go, instead of, I can to go; thou canst go; he can go.

He did not provide any other usage notes in the entry on the word. The reason is unclear why Webster provided a usage notes whose contents seems to be applicable to other modal auxiliaries here. However, it seems clear that Webster did not detail the usage of can anyway. As to verbal examples, he supplied 2 citations in its ninth sub-entry, which genuinely concern the senses, not the usage, of the word: W: CAN, v.i. 9. To have strength of inclination or motives sufficient to overcome obstacles, impediments, inconvenience or other objection. I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. Luke xiv. I cannot rise and give thee – yet because of his importunity, he will rise and give him. Luke xi.

As to might and could, these modal auxiliaries seem to have been nothing but the preterites of may and can for Johnson. He only stated the following in the entry on could: J: COULD. [the imperfect preterite of can. See CAN.] Was able to; had power to.

He did not supply any verbal examples in this entry, and did not divide it into sub-entries. In the entry on might, he supplied a citation, but he did not even give a definition; he merely indicated that might is the preterite of may. As for Webster, he also regarded the two modal auxiliaries could and might as mere preterites of can and may, respectively. In the introductory remarks in the entry on could, he stated that could “in reality a distinct word, can having no past tense”, but in the same remarks, he strangely said, “In the past tense, could signifies, was able, had power”. Therefore, Webster’s remarks here do not seem to be coherent. He provided 10 sub-entries on the word, and all of them concern could as nothing other than the genuine preterite of can; it seems that Webster did not find any specific usage of the word which can does not

186 have. This can also be said about might; he did not refer to any special senses and usage of might which may does not have. The usage of the auxiliaries may and can are similar to but not identical with each other. Quirk et al., for instance, referred to the difference in terms of two modalities, the possibility and permission. Concerning the former, they (1985:223) claimed that “the most common meaning of may [= possibility] is different from the possibility sense of can” and that “To paraphrase may, we use it is possible by a that-clause, rather than an infinitive clause”. As to the latter, they (1985:223) stated that “may is more formal and less common than can” and that “may is particularly associated with permission given by the speaker”, differently from can. As to Johnson, he was more conscious of the difference between may and can than Webster. Though not discussing the usage of may in detail in the entry on the word, he tried to expound the differences between may and can in the entry on can. He supplied invented examples, not citations, for the purpose. Webster did not detail the usage of the two modal auxiliaries as Johnson. In this sense, Johnson was unusually superior to Webster as far as the treatment of the two modal auxiliaries is concerned. As to their treatment of might and could, little difference can be observed between the two lexicographers; both Johnson and Webster did not expound on the usage specific to the words.

8.1.5 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries on the Modal Auxiliary Must In treating the auxiliary must, Johnson did not divide the entry on the word into sub-entries. However, in this entry, Johnson was conscious of the usage of the word. Specifically, Johnson provided the following usage note there: J: MUST. verb imperfect. To be obliged. It is only used before a verb. Must is of all persons and tenses, and used of persons and things.

This note shows that Johnson was conscious of person and tense in relation to the modal auxiliary. Under this usage note, Johnson supplied following 5 citations: Do you confess the bond? - I do. - Then must the Jew be merciful. - On what compulsion must I? tell me that. Shakespeare. Must I needs bring thy son unto the land from whence thou camest? Gen. xxiv. 5. Fade, flowers, fade, nature will have it so; ‘Tis but what we must our Autumn do. Waller. Because the same self-existent being necessarily is what he is, ‘tis evident that what he may be, or hath the power of being, he must be. Grew. Every father and brother of the convent has a voice in the election, which must be confirmed by the pope. Addison.

187 These citations include various types of persons, illustrating Johnson’s comments quoted above. In the citation from Shakespeare, must is used with third person singular; in that from Waller with first person plural; in that from Grew with third person singular; and in that from Addison with which, a relative pronoun denoting ‘Every father and brother of the convent’. Webster had the same opinion about person and tense in relation to the use of the word. In the introductory remarks in the entry on must, Webster stated that “It is used as an auxiliary verb, and has no variation to express person, time or number”. However, his explanation of the usage of the word is more detailed than Johnson’s. That is, Webster pointed out 2 modalities which must denotes, supplying invented examples. In the first subentry on the word, Webster remarked as follows: W: MUST, v.i. 1. It expresses both physical and moral necessity. A man must eat for nourishment, and he must sleep for refreshment. We must submit to the laws or be exposed to punishment. A bill in a legislative body must have three readings before it can pass to be enacted.

In the second sub-entry, he stated, supplying citations this time: W: MUST, v.i. 2. It expresses moral fitness or propriety, as necessary or essential to the character or end proposed. “Deacons must be grave;” “a bishop must have a good report of them that are without.” 1 Tim. iii.

In this way, both Johnson and Webster were interested in indicating person and tense to be noted concerning the word. Johnson supplied citations selected for the purpose. As for Webster, he also indicated the modalities of must and supplied invented examples, as well as citations, in accordance with the indication.

8.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis Both Johnson and Webster treated modal auxiliaries in various ways, and the usual practices in their treatment of the words can hardly be summarized. However, it can at least be said that they were strongly conscious of grammatical categories in the treatment of the words. They were especially so in treating will, shall, would and should. As to the use of verbal examples, Johnson supplied few citations in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries, and made full use of invented examples there, instead. Johnson could have supplied numerous citations from English literature in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries as he did in entries on verbs of high frequency, but he did not practice in this way. In this respect, James Murray’s and Noel Osselton’s perspective which was referred to in Section 8.1.1 does not apply to sub-entries on modal auxiliaries in Johnson’s Dictionary. Certainly, he occasionally supplied citations, but in most cases this was done based on his own view of the usage of modal auxiliaries, and he did not deduce the usage of the words from the citations. As for Webster, he was especially dependent on invented examples. As confirmed at the beginning of this section, Section 8.1.1, modal auxiliaries are function words which denote moods. For the treatment of the words, Johnson was essentially a grammarian, paying attention to tense, mood and person quite frequently, and was not a man of letters except for a few rare

188 cases. As for Webster, he especially made use of his knowledge as a grammarian; he usually referred to tense, mood and person in more detail than Johnson.

8.2

Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Primary Verbs

8.2.1 The Characteristics of Primary Verbs and the Procedure of the Analysis There are verbs which function both as principal verbs and as auxiliaries. They are be, do and have which modern grammarians call primary verbs. Concerning the semantic characteristics of these verbs as auxiliaries, Randolph Quirk et al. have given the following definition, which I will accept in this section: Semantically, the primary verbs as auxiliaries share an association with the basic grammatical verb categories of tense, aspect, and voice. In this they are broadly distinguished from the modal verbs, which are associated mainly with the expression of modal meanings such as possibility, obligation, and volition. (Quirk et al. 1985:129)

Specifically, as auxiliaries, be helps to build the progressive form and the passive voice, have the perfect tense, and do the negative and interrogative sentences, as well as functions as a sign of emphasis. In addition to such varied characteristics, their inflections are closely associated with number and person of their subjects. Both Johnson and Webster treated such words in their dictionaries. In the preceding section, it was revealed that they supplied verbal examples to illustrate the usage of modal auxiliaries, using grammatical terms. The primary verb is also a type of word which often requires the use of grammatical terms in its treatment. Therefore, it is expected that the analysis of their treatment of primary verbs further shows how the lexicographers supplied verbal examples, paying attention to grammatical categories. Concerning the table of the number of sub-entries and verbal examples, as well as that of the sources of citations, I will not provide them in this section. Because of the intricate characteristics of primary verbs mentioned above, it would be difficult to show the general tendencies in Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the words by means of such tables. With this in mind, I will first analyse how Johnson and Webster treated primary verbs in entries on the infinitives of the words in their dictionaries. In this task, I will exclusively deal with their treatment of primary verbs as auxiliaries. The reason for this is that the analysis of their treatment of principal verbs has already been made in Section 5.1 where I investigated how Johnson and Webster treated verbs of high frequency. Then, after dealing with entries on the infinitives of primary verbs in this way, I will move on to the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of their inflected forms.

189 8.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Primary Verbs In this sub-section, I will analyse how Johnson and Webster supplied verbal examples to illustrate the usage of be, do and have as auxiliaries in this order. As to be as an auxiliary, they supplied verbal examples in the following way, providing 1 sub-entry, respectively: J: To BE. v.n. 2. It is the auxiliary verb by which the verb passive is formed. The wine of life is drawn, and the meer lees Is left this vault to brag of. Shakesp. Macbeth. W: BE, v.i. This verb is used as an auxiliary in forming the tenses of other verbs, and particularly in giving to them the passive form; as, he has been disturbed.

In this way, Johnson illustrated the role of be in the formation of the simple present passive voice. In the citation which he supplied is appears twice, supporting his explanation well. In contrast to this practice, Webster supplied an invented example which indicates the use of be in the present perfect passive voice, implying the possibility that the formation of the passive voice with the use of be is applicable in tenses other than the simple present. As to be for the formation of the progressive form, neither Johnson nor Webster referred to it. Concerning do, I will firstly analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the word as a sign of emphasis, and later its function in the formation of the negative and interrogative sentences. With regard to do as a sign of emphasis, Johnson gave a detailed account of it. He provided 4 sub-entries for the purpose, supplying 1 or 2 invented examples in each; additionally, he also supplied 6 citations in total in these sub-entries. The contents of the sub-entries are: J: To DO. v.i. 7-10. 7. Do is a word of vehement command, or earnest request; as, help me, do; make haste, do. If thou hast lost thy land, do not also lose thy constancy; and if thou must die a little sooner, yet do not die impatiently. Taylor’s Rule of living holy. I am ensnared; Heaven’s birdlime wraps me round, and glues my wings: ---Loose me. ---I will free thee. ---Do, and I’ll be thy slave. Dryden’s King Arthur. 8. To Do is put before verbs sometimes expletively; as, I do love, or, I love; I did love, or, I loved. The Turks do acknowledge God the father, creator of heaven and earth, being the first person in the Trinity, though they deny the rest. Bacon’s Holy War. This just reproach their virtue does excite; They stand, they join, they thicken to the fight. Dryd. AEn. Expletives their feeble aid do join. Pope. 9. Sometimes emphatically; as, I do hate him, but will not wrong him. But I do love thee; and when I love thee not, Chaos is come again. Shakespeare’s Othello. 10. Sometimes by way of opposition; as, I did love him, but scorn him now.

190 Thus, Johnson divided do as a sign of emphasis into 4 types: do in the vehement command or earnest request; do before the verb as the expletive; do for simple emphasis; and do as a sign of opposition. These types were apparently deduced from his extensive reading of English literature; he illustrated 3 types out of the 4 by means of citations. At the same time, however, it is notable that he supplied at least 1 invented example to illustrate each of the 4 types. This indicates that Johnson had his unique view of do as a sign of emphasis. When this taken into account, it can safely be said that he supplied citations which accorded with his criteria. In Webster’s case, he also expounded do as a sign of emphasis as shown below. In this excerpt, the numbers in square brackets are not in the original; they are put there for the convenience of the present analysis: W: DO, v.i. [1] Do is also used in the imperative, to express an urgent request or command; as, do come; help me, do; make haste, do. In this case, do is uttered with emphasis. [2] Do is also used to express emphasis. She is coquetish, but still I do love her. [3] Do is sometimes a mere expletive. This just reproach their virtue does excite. Dryden. Expletives their feeble aid do join. Pope. [The latter use of do is nearly obsolete.] [4] Do is sometimes used by way of opposition; as, I did love him, but he has lost my affections.

Here, Webster’s indication is largely derived from Johnson’s view of do as a sign of emphasis; [1] corresponds to do in the vehement command or earnest request, [2] do for simple emphasis, [3] do before the verb as the expletive, and [4] do as a sign of opposition. He also borrowed citations from Dryden and Pope in [3] from the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary, and most of Webster’s invented examples are identical with Johnson’s. However, it is not that Webster added nothing to Johnson’s view. Differently from Johnson, Webster indicated that do used in the imperative should be uttered with special stress in [1]. Quite differently from the case of do as a sign of emphasis, Johnson did not refer to do for the formation of the negative and interrogative sentences in relevant entries ‘To DO. v.a..’ and ‘To DO. v.i.’. Johnson supplied 45 citations in these entries except for those which were supplied for the explanation of do as a sign of emphasis. However, in the 45 citations, neither a negative sentence with do+not nor an interrogative sentence beginning with do is included. The following passage in the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary clearly shows that Johnson was fully aware of the importance of do in the formation of the negative and interrogative sentences; in verbal examples in his “Grammar”, Johnson wrote words to be noted in roman: It [do] is frequently joined with negative; as I like her, but I do not love her, I wished him success, but did not help him. The imperative prohibitory is seldom applied in the second person, at least in prose, without the word do; as, Stop him, but do not hurt him; Praise beauty, but do not dote on it.

Its chief use is in interrogative forms of speech, in which it is used through all the persons; as, Do I live? Dost thou strike me? Do they rebel? Did I complain? Didst thou love her? Did she die? So likewise in negative interrogations; Do I not yet grieve? Did she not die? (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [8th in the “Grammar”])

191 It is not clear why Johnson did not refer to do for the formation of the negative and interrogative sentences in the 2 entries on do. As for Webster, he indicated the use of do for the formation of interrogative sentences in a relevant entry as follows: W: DO, v.i. As an auxiliary, do is used in asking questions. Do you intend to go? Does he wish me to come?

The invented examples in this sub-entry clearly indicate that Webster was conscious of person and number relevant to the use of do. As to the role of do in the formation of negative sentences, Webster did not treat it in the entry on do. Concerning have, Johnson mentioned its functions as an auxiliary in terms of the formation of the present perfect and pluperfect forms, or the ‘preterperfect’ and ‘preterpluperfect’ forms in his terms, in one of the sub-entries on have (v.a.). He supplied 10 citations in the sub-entry, and it is almost certain that he carefully selected them so that they may fully support his explanation on perfect forms. That is, there are some cases where one citation includes 2 or 3 perfect forms. Besides, it is also noticeable that 9 citations out of the 10 reproduced here are taken from Addison, which implies the possibility that Johnson highly estimated Addison’s perfect forms. The contents of the relevant sub-entry is as shown below: J: To HAVE. v.a. 20. It is most used in English, as in other European languages, as an auxiliary verb to make the tenses. Have the preterperfect, and had the preterpluperfect. If there had been words enow between them to have expressed provocation, they had gone together by the ears. Cong. I have heard one of the greatest genius’s this age has produced, who had been trained up in all the polite studies of antiquity, assure me, upon his being obliged to search into records, that he at last took an incredible pleasure in it. Addison. I have not here considered custom as it makes things easy, but as it renders them delightful; and though others have made the same reflections, it is impossible they may not have drawn those uses from it. Addison. [7 out of 9 citations from Addison are omitted here. K.M.]

Webster’s treatment of have as an auxiliary is rather different from Johnson’s. He gave a brief explanation of it in a relevant entry, instructing the readers to refer to the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary for details. However, he did not forget to indicate the way of formulating perfect forms with the use of have. In addition to this task, Webster also gave information on the relation between the inflected forms of have and person and number in conjunction with perfect forms; he further supplied invented examples for the purpose. In this practice, Webster’s is rather brief, but it may be said that he did more than what Johnson had done in a relatively long sub-entry. The relevant part in Webster’s Dictionary is as follows:

192 W: HAVE, v.t. [...] its uses as an auxiliary verb [...] are fully explained in grammars. As an auxiliary, it assists in forming the perfect tense, as I have formed, thou hast formed, he hath or has formed, we have formed, and the prior-past tense, as I had seen, thou hadst seen, he had seen.

8.2.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on the Inflected Forms of Primary Verbs All primary verbs are inflected irregularly. In this respect, most auxiliaries and some principal verbs share this feature with primary verbs. However, the inflected forms of primary verbs are usually more closely related to person and number of their subjects than in the case of those of auxiliaries and principal verbs. For this reason, it is thought that the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice in the treatment of the inflected forms of primary verbs will clearly reveal how they supplied verbal examples, paying attention to grammatical categories. In this sub-section, I will focus on Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the inflected forms of be, the primary verb which is inflected most irregularly. Both Johnson and Webster provided entries on am, are, been, being, is, was, were and wert. However, in the entries on being, Johnson said that its entry word is a noun, and Webster did little more than indicate that the word is the present participle of be. For this reason, I will analyse how Johnson and Webster dealt with am, are, been, is, was, were and wert in the respective relevant entries. The following are the contents of the entries on am in the two dictionaries: J: AM. The first person of the verb to be. [See To BE.] And God said unto Moses, I am that I am: and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you. Exodus, iii. 14. Come then, my soul: I call thee by that name, Thou busy thing, from whence I know I am: For knowing what I am, I know thou art; Since that must needs exist, which can impart. Prior. W: AM, the first person of the verb to be, in the indicative mode, present tense. Sax. eom [...] Goth, im; Pers. am. I AM that I AM. Ex. iii.

While Johnson here indicated nothing more than that am is the first person inflection of be, Webster explained the mood and tense the word denotes. Incidentally, Webster also provided etymological information for am; he also provided such information in other entries on the inflected forms of be. Since the inflected forms of be are derived from the words whose etymologies are different from each other, it may have been natural for Webster, who was keenly interested in etymology, to do this. However, since such etymological information has little relevance to the purpose of this section, I will delete it from Webster’s entries hereafter. In supplying verbal examples, Johnson was more considerate of the dictionary reader than Webster. In the first citation am appears three times, and in the second, its usage can be compared with that of art for second person singular. Webster’s citation seems rather brief; if his dictionary readers did not have

193 sufficient knowledge of the Bible, this citation would have been almost meaningless. It may be that Webster excessively expected the reader’s knowledge of the Bible here. For the treatment of are, Johnson supplied 2 invented examples and one citation in the relevant entry, and Webster supplied 3 invented examples, together with a usage notes, as follows: J: ARE. The third person plural of the present tense of the verb to be; as, young men are rash, old are cautious. Gamut I am, the ground of all accord, Are to plead Hortensio’s passion; B mi Bianca take him for thy lord, C faut, that loves with all affection. Shakesp. Tam. Shrew. W: ARE. The plural of the substantive verb [...]. [Etymological comments have been deleted. K.M.] We are; ye or you are; they are; past tense plural were. It is usually pronounced àr.

In these entries, Webster’s brief invented examples tell more about the usage of are than Johnson’s long citation; they include information on whichever person is relevant. There is almost nothing to be commented on Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of been. The following are the whole of the contents of relevant entries: J: BEEN. The participle preterite of To BE; which see. W: BEEN, Part. perf. of be; pronounced bin. [Etymological comments have been deleted here. K.M.]

It may be that they treated been in this way because the word is used regardless of person and number of its subjects. In the entries on is, both Johnson and Webster indicated person and number associated with is. Johnson supplied 1 invented example and 3 citations in one of 2 sub-entries on the word. In the citations, there are 6 examples of the use of is, whose subjects are varied. The contents of the sub-entry is as follows: J: IS. 1. The third person singular of to be: I am, thou art, he is. He that is of God, heareth God’s words. Jo. viii. 47. Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do evil; neither is it in them to do good. Jer. x. 5. My thought, whose murther yet is but fantastical, Shakes so my single state of man, that function Is smother’d in surmise; and nothing is, But what is not. Shakespeare’s Macbeth.

Especially in the third citation here, is appears 3 times, which implies Johnson’s careful selection of citations in the sub-entry. In another sub-entry, Johnson indicated that is can be abbreviated to ’s, which does not concern the analysis in this section. Webster’s treatment of is is as shown below. He referred to mood and tense in addition to person and number:

194 W: IS, v.i. The third person singular of the substantive verb [...]. [Etymological comments have been deleted here. K.M.] In the indicative, present tense, it is thus varied; I am, thou art, he, she, or it, is; we, ye or you, they, are.

In treating was and were, the preterites of be, Johnson supplied citations to show how the words are used, but he did not make any comments in relevant entries. Besides, in each of the citations, the relevant words appear only once: J: WAS. The preterite of To BE. Enoch walked with God, and was not; for God took him. Gen. v. 24. J: WERE. of the verb to be. To give our sister to one uncircumcised, were a reproach unto us. Gen. xxxiv. 14. In infusions in things that are of too high a spirit, you were better pour off the first infusion, and use the latter. Bacon. Henry divided, as it were, The person of himself into four parts. Daniel’s Civil War. As though there were any feriation in nature, or justitium’s imaginable in professions, this season is termed the physicians vacation. Brown’s Vulgar Errours. He had been well assur’d that art And conduct were of war the better part. Dryden.

Johnson seems to have been unenthusiastic about treating was and were, as no grammatical information is included in relevant entries. Webster, by contrast, gave a detailed account of the words: W: WAS, s as z. [...] the past tense of the substantive verb[...] [Etymological comments have been deleted here. K.M.]. [...] Eng. is, in the present tense, and was in the past; as, I was; he was. W: WERE, This is used as the imperfect tense plural of be; we were, you were, they were; and in some other tenses. [Etymological comments have been deleted here. K.M.] It is united with be, to supply its want of tenses, as went is with go.

Here, Webster indicated that were is used when its subjects are first person plural, second person and third person plural with examples. Additionally, he referred to the cases where were is used in imperfect tense and where it is unified with be. He illustrated such explanation with invented examples. As to wert, the obsolete inflected form of be, Johnson supplied 3 citations to illustrate its usage, stating that the word is the preterite of be, as follows: J: WERT. the second person singular of the preterite of to be. Thou wert heard. B. Johnson. O that thou wert as my brother. Cant. viii. 1. All join’d, and thou of many wert but one. Dryden.

195 Webster stated the following regarding the word as the subjunctive imperfect tense of be: W: WERT [...] the second person singular of the subjunctive imperfect tense of be.

It is probably because the use of this word had become rather rare in Webster’s time that he supplied neither a citation nor an invented example. Incidentally, there is an episode about Johnson’s recognition of wert. In the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary, Johnson (1755: n. pag. [7th]) referred to the mood associated with the word, saying that “Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative”. According to Sterling Leonard (1962:200-209), the term ‘conjunctive mood’ which Johnson used here puzzled many grammarians at Johnson’s time, because most of them had been accustomed to use ‘subjunctive mood’ until Johnson’s Dictionary was published. As for Johnson, he (1755: n. pag. [6th-8th in the “Grammar”]) admitted 4 moods in the language: the indicative, imperative, conjunctive and infinitive. The subjunctive mood was not included in the 4 moods. In his “Grammar”, Johnson even claimed that: The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded, or rather the conjunctive is wholly neglected, when some convenience of verification does not invite its revival. It is used among the purer writers after if, though, ere, before, whether, except, unless, whatsoever, whomsoever, and words of wishing; as, Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not. (1755: n. pag. [8th in the “Grammar”])

However, in the fourth edition of his Dictionary, Johnson used the term ‘subjunctive’ as follows in the entry on wert, supplying the same citations as those in the first edition: J: WERT. the second person singular of the subjunctive imperfect of To be. Thou wert heard. Ben. Johnson. O that thou wert as my brother. Cant. viii. 1. All join’d, and thou of many wert but one. Dryden.

This may imply that Johnson’s view of the relevant technical terms changed after he published the first edition of the Dictionary.

8.2.4 Generalization of the Analysis Both Johnson and Webster did not treat every function of primary verbs like the case of modal auxiliaries. For instance, they did not treat the role of be in the formation of the progressive form, while its use in the formation of the passive voice is covered by both Johnson and Webster, as is the role of have in the formation of the perfect tense. As to do as a sign of emphasis, both gave a detailed account. In general, Webster’s treatment of primary verbs as auxiliaries is more detailed than Johnson’s. While Johnson commented on be for the formation of the passive voice in the simple present tense, Webster further referred to it in the present perfect tense. Besides, Webster indicated the use of do for the formation of the negative sentence in a relevant entry, which Johnson did not do in its

196 corresponding entry in his Dictionary. Furthermore, there are occasions when Webster’s brief invented examples provide more information on the functions of primary verbs as auxiliaries than Johnson’s long citations. In treating inflected forms of primary verbs, Johnson and Webster were very attentive to relevant person and number, and sometimes to mood. This is reflected in entries on the inflected forms of be in their dictionaries. In his practice of supplying verbal examples, Johnson was more dependent on citations in treating primary verbs than in the case of modal auxiliaries. However, he supplied invented examples in most entries on primary verbs, which he rarely practiced in entries on verbs of high frequency where he attached importance to the explanation of the senses of the words rather than their usage. This illustrates that he was attentive to grammatical categories which primary verbs concern, though less so than to those which modal auxiliaries do. In Webster’s case, he supplied invented examples almost continuously as seen in other types of entries, valuing their brevity; this indicates that Webster was consistently concerned about the usage of words.

9:

Conclusion

9.1

Outline

In writing the conclusion, I will summarize the mass of data which I have assembled in Chapters 1 to 8 from a systematic viewpoint, rather than enumerate the major points in each chapter in sequence. Otherwise, various types of facts which have been revealed so far would not be integrated, and remain isolated from each other. Based on this recognition, I will first discuss the process of my analyses in Section 9.2, the main part of this chapter. The primary purpose of this section is to reveal Johnson’s and Webster’s intentions behind supplying verbal examples. The section will be comprised of 6 parts: discoveries in the preliminary survey; reflections on the main types of analyses; facts and questions about Johnson’s practices in supplying citations; those about Webster’s; ways of answering such questions; and a summary of the lexicographers’ practices in supplying verbal examples. I will focus my attention on revealing general tendencies, citing few specific examples of their citations and invented examples. After discussing the ‘process of the analyses’, I will summarise aspects of Webster’s uniqueness as compared with Johnson’s in Section 9.3. In a sense, the style of Section 9.2 will accept the suggestion of the saying “we cannot see the forest for the trees”. However, it is also true that ‘seeing the trees’ is helpful for a better understanding of ‘the forest’. That is, in Section 9.3, I will enumerate conspicuous facts other than those discussed in Section 9.2. Section 9.3 will consist of 7 parts: the historical background of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries; Webster’s modifications of the structure of entries in Johnson’s Dictionary; differences between Johnson’s and Webster’s views on usage; the modernity of Webster’s view of usage; Webster’s development of Johnson’s treatment of words and phrases; Webster’s use of Johnson’s citations; and Webster’s invented examples. In addition to the above, it should be pointed out that the remainder of this chapter will provide abundant cross-references to relevant sections (this is because I also intend to make this chapter a type of subject index). And, unlike the case of other chapters, I will indicate each section to be referred to in parentheses.

9.2

Reflections on the Process of the Analyses

9.2.1 Discoveries in the Preliminary Survey At the beginning of the thesis (Section 1.1), I described the background to the project, including the three reasons why the results of the preliminary survey seemed rewarding. At the start of this chapter, I want to enumerate the major facts against prevailing perspectives which have been revealed by my analyses in the main body of the thesis, Chapters 4 to 8. I will perform this by listing 6 sets of ‘myths and realities’, three each for Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries. The list will be helpful in order to appreciate the focal points in the

198 main body of the thesis, which I will confirm in the following sections (Sections 9.2.2 to 9.2.6). (1) With regard to Johnson’s Dictionary, it has widely been believed that most of his citations were taken from literary works published between Sidney’s (b.1554-d.1586) time and the 1650’s, works which Johnson called “the wells of English undefiled” (1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 61) in the “Preface”]) (Section 4.1). This is far from true. Rather than those works, Johnson generally preferred to supply citations from works after the 1650’s (Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2). (2) There is a prevailing assumption that Johnson supplied citations in all entries and sub-entries in his Dictionary (Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.6). This does not accord with the facts, either. For the treatment of some types of words, especially of modal auxiliaries, Johnson most often used invented examples rather than citations (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5). (3) Furthermore, there is a myth that Johnson supplied biblical citations throughout the whole range of his Dictionary as a reflection of his strong faith (Section 4.5.1). The fact is that he hardly quoted from the Bible in entries on function words (Sections 6.1.2 to 6.2.2 and 8.1.1). (4) As to Webster’s verbal examples, one prevailing but false opinion is that he regarded such examples in the dictionary as almost useless (Section 4.3.1). Certainly, he generally used citations far less frequently than Johnson (Section 4.3.2), but he supplied an abundance of invented examples, instead (Section 4.4). Besides, he seems to have carefully selected phrases and sentences to be quoted in his Dictionary (Section 4.3.2), making full use of them to provide instructions on the usage of words (Sections 4.3.2, 6.1.5, 6.2.4, etc). (5) It has also been claimed by many authorities that Webster supplied far more biblical citations than Johnson (Section 4.5.2). As a matter of fact, the number of biblical citations in his Dictionary is generally far smaller than that in Johnson’s (Sections 4.1.1, 4.3.2 and 4.5.2). However, in almost all entries and sub-entries which I analysed, he seems to have carefully selected biblical phrases and sentences to be quoted so that they might be helpful to illustrate the usage of words (Sections 4.5, 5.1.3, 6.1.4, etc.). In addition, it was quite usual for him to shorten such phrases and sentences when they were borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary (Sections 4.5.6, 5.1.3, 6.1.5, etc.), sometimes eliminating the middle of them (Section 4.5.6), and not to hesitate from time to time to change their wording when they were directly taken from the AV, the original source (Sections 4.5.6 and 7.4); this practice seems to have been almost entirely intended for the effective instruction on the usage of words, showing that his biblical citations had had little relevance to his faith (Sections 3.3.5, 4.5.6, 4.5.7, etc.). It may be necessary to confirm here that I have differentiated frequency and absolute numbers of Johnson’s and Webster’s biblical citations. That is, Webster quoted from the Bible more frequently than any other source in his Dictionary, but the number of his biblical citations is far smaller than Johnson’s. This also concerns my discussion in this section later (Sections 9.2.4 to 9.2.6). In this regard, in criticising Joseph Reed’s (1962:104) remarks that “Johnson had quoted liberally from the Bible, but apparently not nearly often enough to please Webster” (Section 4.5.2), I referred to Reed’s misleading claim that Webster’s biblical citations outnumber Johnson’s there, which will be clear from the context of its relevant section. (6) And quite a few authorities have strongly claimed that Webster frequently supplied citations from American authors (Section 4.3.3). The reality is that Webster hardly used

199 such authors (Sections 4.3.2 to 4.3.3, 5.1.2, etc.); he quoted from British authors, especially those between the beginning of the Restoration and Johnson’s time, far more often than from American authors (Sections 4.3.2 to 4.3.3, 5.1.2, etc.). In this way, the survey revealed facts which correct prevailing perspectives. Therefore, it confirmed my hypothesis that the detailed analyses of Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples in accordance with these facts would open new horizons in the historical study of English lexicography. It was especially exciting for me to realize that Webster’s Dictionary could be regarded essentially as a highly sophisticated dictionary of the language at his time rather than as an encyclopaedic dictionary; as far as I could judge, few authorities had referred to this point.

9.2.2 Reflections on the Main Types of Analysis With such expectations such as those mentioned at the end of the preceding section in mind, I began to produce statistical tables to clarify the two lexicographers’ tendencies in the practice of supplying verbal examples. For the purpose of producing the tables, I mainly classified their citations in respective types of entries and sub-entries according to the sources. However, it was also important to take account of their invented examples in the tabulation, since it was clear to me that such examples occasionally played a more important role for both Johnson and Webster than citations, especially in their treatment of modal auxiliaries and primary verbs as discussed in Chapter 8. As a consequence, I produced 24 tables in total, which are scattered over Chapters 4 to 8. Referring to the tables produced in this way, I was not only able to confirm the correctness of the results of the preliminary survey statistically, but also to find a considerable number of other respective facts. In the following two sections, I will summarize the tendencies in Johnson’s and Webster’s practices in supplying verbal examples as revealed in the major analyses, providing tables for the discussion of their citations. And I will cite the problems to be solved which were brought about by the revelation of the facts. I will describe such points about Johnson’s (Section 9.2.3) and about Webster’s (Section 9.2.4) later. In this connection, reference to the sets of ‘myths and realities’ I listed in the previous section will be helpful for a better understanding of the facts mentioned previously (Section 9.2.1). Apart from those within the range of entries on words beginning with the letter L, all types of entry-words in Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries which I have analysed share the characteristic that no English-speaking person can spend a day without using them, and that they have a wide range of senses and functions. In spite of such analogies, Johnson and Webster did not necessarily supply verbal examples evenly in their respective entries, in terms of quantity. Besides, their selection of sources of citations often differed according to the type of entry-word.

9.2.3 Facts and Questions about Johnson’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples The following table outlines Johnson’s practice in supplying citations in terms of 5 types of entries out of 8 on which I expounded in Chapters 4 to 8; since his way of providing entries

200 and sub-entries on modal auxiliaries is quite different from that on other types of words (Section 8.1.1), I regard the number of relevant words as entries. This table reflects the situation of the top ten most frequently quoted sources in respective types of entries. Integers in parentheses indicate the number of citations (and decimal fractions the percentage) which shows the proportion of respective citations in respective types of entries.

Table 25: Johnson’s Practice in Supplying Citations by Types of Entries Words for the Range of Letter L (4,047 citations / 1,310 entries) Shake15.8 speare (640) Dryden 11.8 (480) Bible (270)

6.7

Milton (165) Bacon (163) Addison (161) Pope (156)

4.1

Locke (133) Spenser (130)

3.3

Swift (114)

2.8

4.0 4.0 3.9

3.2

Verbs of High Frequency (1,496 citations / 28 entries)

Prepositions (618 citations / 19 entries)

Prepositional Adverbs (136 citations / 12 entries)

Bible (249)

16.6

Dryden (114)

18.4

Dryden (24)

17.6

Dryden (183)

12.2

14.4

11.0

Shakespeare (21) Locke (10)

15.4

Shakespeare (165) Locke (101) Addison (94) Bacon (83) Milton (49)

Shakespeare (89) Locke (39)

5.7

Swift (45) Pope (40)

3.0

Bacon (35) Addison (32) Swift (26) Tillotson (22) Pope (21) Milton (16)

Knolles (29)

1.9

Boyle (14)

2.3

6.8 6.3 5.5 3.3

2.7

6.3

5.2 4.2 3.6

3.4 2.6

Modal Auxiliaries (52 citations / 9 words) Shakespeare (8) Dryden (8)

15.4

7.4

Bacon (8)

15.4

Bacon (9) South (5) Milton (5) Bible (4)

6.6

9.6

Watts (3) Sidney (3)

2.2

Pope (3)

2.2

Locke (5) Waller (3) Sidney (3) Hammond (2) Bible (2) Ben Jonson (2) Addison (2)

3.7 3.7 2.9

2.2

15.4

5.8 5.8 3.8

3.8 3.8

3.8

In terms of the quantity of citations, the situation in entries on words for the letter L in this table indicates that Johnson supplied 3.1 citations on average per entry, which can be regarded as Johnson’s usual practice; I have investigated the range of the L’s, where various types of entry-words are mixed, to grasp his general inclinations in supplying and using verbal examples (Section 5.1.1 to 5.1.4). By contrast, he supplied 53.4 citations per entry in entries on verbs of high frequency, and 32.5 in those on prepositions; i.e. 17.2 times more citations than usual in entries on verbs of high frequency, and 10.5 times more citations in those on prepositions. As to entries on prepositional adverbs, he supplied 11.3 times more

201 citations there than usual, and 1.9 times more than usual for the treatment of modal auxiliaries. In all these four types of entries, Johnson quoted phrases and sentences more frequently than usual, but the frequencies in the respective types of entries differ widely from one another, except for those in entries on prepositions and prepositional adverbs. From the viewpoint of the selection of sources, most of the top ten are works by authors from the period after the Restoration. In addition to this point, Johnson’s practice in supplying citations from the Bible is also noteworthy; he frequently quoted from the Bible in entries on verbs of high frequency. While biblical citations in the L’s account for 6.7% of all citations there, those in entries on verbs of high frequency amount to 16.6%. In contrast, the citations in entries on the other three types of entries are surprisingly small in number. Especially in entries on prepositions, the Bible is not included in the top ten most frequently quoted sources. Actually, my analysis revealed that biblical citations there account for less than 1.0%, specifically 0.97%, of the total number of citations (Section 6.1.2); only 6 out of 618 citations are taken from the Bible in entries on prepositions. Instead, Johnson quoted from Dryden exceedingly frequently in the entries, citations from this source accounting for 18.4% of all citations; within the range of four types of entries, Johnson did not quote from any other source as frequently as this. The situation in entries on prepositional adverbs is similar; citations from Dryden there account for 17.6% of the total. With regard to invented examples, Johnson seldom used them in entries on verbs of high frequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. However, he supplied 24 invented examples for the treatment of 9 modal auxiliaries, or 2.7 on average for one modal auxiliary. In some sub-entries on this type of word, Johnson exclusively used invented examples without quoting a single phrase and sentence. Concerning the topics discussed above, I had to find answers to the following five questions: (1) Why did Johnson supply a large number of citations in entries on verbs of high frequency, quoting frequently from the Bible? (2) Why did he supply citations less often in entries on prepositions, prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries than in entries on verbs of high frequency? (3) Why did he supply an extremely small number of citations for the treatment of modal auxiliaries and often used invented examples instead? (4) Why did he not quote often from authors between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s in general, in spite of his own statements in the “Preface” to the Dictionary? (5) Why did he quote exceedingly frequently from Dryden in entries on prepositions and prepositional adverbs, and hardly ever from the Bible?

9.2.4 Facts and Questions about Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples In contrast to Johnson’s, Webster made use of citations as illustrated in the table below. The meaning of each type of figure in the table is as described at the beginning of the previous section.

202 Table 26: Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples by Types of Entries Words for the Range of Letter L (632 citations / 2,024 entries) Bible 28.8 (182) Dryden 11.6 (73)

Verbs of High Frequency (224 citations / 28 entries) Bible (73) Dryden (21)

32.6

Shakespeare (50)

7.9

Shakespeare (17)

Pope (46) Milton (31)

7.3

Addison (21) Locke (12)

Prepositions (94 citations / 19 entries)

Prepositional Adverbs (10 citations / 9 entries)

Bible (43) Dryden (11)

45.7

7.6

Shakespeare (6)

6.4

Bacon (13) Addison (12)

5.8

4.3

3.3

Pope (11)

4.9

Bacon (4) Tillotson (2) Pope (2)

2.1

-----

---

-----

---

1.9

Locke (7)

3.1

2.1

-----

---

-----

---

Swift (10) Bacon (10)

1.6

2.2

2.1

-----

---

-----

---

1.1

-----

---

-----

---

Spenser (9)

1.4

Swift (5) Woodward (3) Tillotson (3)

Ben Jonson (2) Addison (2) Waller (1) Temple (1)

1.1

-----

---

-----

---

4.9

1.6

9.4

5.4

1.3

1.3

11.7

2.1

Bible (6) Shakespeare (1) Sanderson (1)

60.0

Prior (1) Dryden (1)

10.0

Modal Auxiliaries (17 citations / 9 words)

10.0

10.0

10.0

Bible (13) Dryden (1)

76.5

Boethius (trans.) (1) Bournet (1) Addison (1)

7.7

7.7

7.7 7.7

Webster supplied 632 citations within the range of 2,024 entries on words for the letter L, i.e. 0.3 citations on average per entry; I have regarded this as Webster’s usual practice. This signifies that the number of Webster’s citations per entry is usually approximately one tenth of that of Johnson’s. However, like Johnson, Webster did not supply citations evenly in the four other types of entries. He supplied 8.0 citations on average per entry in entries on verbs of high frequency and 4.9 in those on prepositions. This means that Webster supplied 26 times more citations than usual for the treatment of verbs of high frequency and 16 times more citations for that of prepositions. In treating prepositional adverbs, he used 1.1 citations per entry, or 3.7 times more citations than usual, in their relevant entries. As to the treatment of modal auxiliaries, he supplied 6.3 times more citations than usual. With regard to the sources of citations, there are two points to be noted. The one is that almost all sources Webster quoted from are works of British authors between the beginning

203 of the Restoration and Johnson’s own time, which is similar to Johnson’s practice. The other is Webster’s use of biblical citations. The number of biblical citations in Webster’s Dictionary is generally far smaller than that in Johnson’s (Section 4.5.2). That is, within the range of entries on words beginning with the letter L, Johnson supplied 270 biblical citations in 1,310 entries, but Webster only used 182 such citations in 2,024 entries; this means an average for Johnson of 0.2 biblical citations per entry and for Webster less than 0.1, specifically 0.09. At the same time, however, Webster always quoted from the Bible more frequently than from any other source. Especially in entries on prepositions, prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries, he used more Bible quotes than in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency, which is in stark contrast to Johnson. As confirmed in the previous section, Johnson hardly used biblical citations in entries on prepositions, prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries, although he quoted from the Bible quite frequently in general. Webster was also different from Johnson in frequently supplying invented examples. Within the range of the L’s, he provided approximate 2,000 invented examples, or 1.0 such example on average per entry (Section 4.4). He offered 17.0 invented examples on average in entries on prepositions, and 10.4 in those on modal auxiliaries. Facing these facts, I had to seek answers to the following five questions: (1) Why did Webster frequently supply citations in entries on verbs of high frequency? Did he imitate Johnson in this respect? (2) Why did he supply citations less frequently in entries on prepositions and modal auxiliaries than in verbs of high frequency? Did this follow Johnson’s practice? (3) Why did Webster prefer to quote from British authors between the beginning of the Restoration and Johnson’s time? Is this a reflection of his borrowing citations from Johnson’s Dictionary? (4) Why did he supply biblical citations especially frequently in entries on prepositions, prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries, unlike Johnson? (5) Why did Webster use invented examples especially frequently in entries on prepositions and modal auxiliaries?

9.2.5 Ways of Answering the Questions In order to find answers to these questions, it became necessary for me to analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s relevant verbal examples and their source texts again almost from the very beginning; as to the latter, they included the prefaces and grammars attached to the dictionaries, Johnson’s Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language (1747) and Webster’s “Introduction” to his Dictionary. This was the most painstaking but also most fascinating part of my research. I was determined to observe one important principle; there are quite a few similarities between Johnson’s and Webster’s practices, but I did not want to be swayed by the temptation to ascribe such similarities to Webster’s copying of Johnson’s Dictionary. This is because I had already noticed that in some respects Webster did not imitate but made full use of Johnson’s text. For instance, Webster quite frequently borrowed Johnson’s citations, but in many cases he used them in a way which Johnson could never have imagined. One

204 example is that Webster used Johnson’s citation for the purpose of expressing his own view of the usage of go (Section 5.1.4): J: To GO. v.n. 42. To extend in meaning. His amorous expressions go no further than virtue may allow. Dryden’s Ovid, Preface. ---------W: GO, v.i. 30, 31 and 32. 30. To proceed; to extend. This argument goes far towards proving the point. It goes a great way towards establishing the innocence of the accused. 31. To have effect; to extend in effect; to avail; to be of force or value. Money goes farther now than it did during the war. 32. To extend in meaning or purport. His amorous expressions go no further than virtue may allow. Dryden. [In the last three examples, the sense of go depends on far, farther, further.]

It seems to me that this has hardly been pointed out by authorities, but his unique use of Johnson’s citations as above is observable in plenty in Webster’s Dictionary (Section 9.3.6).

9.2.6

Summarizing Johnson’s and Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples

The task of finding answers to the questions mentioned in the previous section (Section 9.2.3 and 9.2.4) successfully completed, I was able to obtain satisfactory results. As to Johnson’s practice, I was able to clarify the following points: (1) Johnson’s statement that he tried to provide citations from the works of authors between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s was made from a literary viewpoint (Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.3). The fact that he did not quote often from such works indicates that his Dictionary is essentially not a literary work (Sections 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, etc.). (2) He clearly selected sources of citations according to the types of entry-words. Evidence comes from the fact that while quoting frequently from Hanmer, a politician, Harris, a compiler of an encyclopaedic dictionary, Hill, a natural scientist, and Miller, a botanist for encyclopaedic entry-words within the range of entries on words for the letter L (Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.2), Johnson did not supply a single citation from these authors in all entries on verbs of high frequency, prepositions, prepositional adverbs, modal auxiliaries, and primary verbs and their inflected forms, with the exception of sub-entries devoted to idioms (Sections 5.1.2, 6.1.2 to 6.2.2, etc.). (3) He was more descriptive than prescriptive in treating verbs of high frequency (Section 5.1.1). By contrast, he was strictly prescriptive in treating prepositions (Section 6.1.1). In this situation, he allowed himself to quote often from the Bible in entries on verbs of high frequency (Sections 5.1.2 to 5.1.3), but hardly ever in entries on prepositions (Section 6.1.2). He was certainly a person of strong faith, but thought that translations, including the English Bible, tended to degenerate the language (Sections 1.4.2 and 6.1.3). Instead, he often quoted from Dryden whose view of prepositional usage was in accord with his (Sections 6.1.2 to 6.1.3). The situation in entries on prepositions is similar to that in entries on prepositional adverbs (Section 6.2.2).

205 (4) This also affects his careful selection of citations, i.e. less often in entries on prepositions and prepositional adverbs than in those on verbs of high frequency (Sections 5.1.2, 6.1.2 and 6.2.2). (5) In entries on modal auxiliaries, as well as in those on primary verbs and their inflected forms, Johnson almost exclusively focused on explaining the usage of words (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3), often referring to grammatical categories such as person, number and mood (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.1.5, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3). And Johnson’s practice to supply verbal examples can be summarized thus: the more he became conscious of usage, the stricter he became in the selection of citations, decreasing their number and increasing the proportion of invented examples. As to Webster’s practice, the following observations can be made. (1) After 1807, Webster’s ideal style of English was not American English, but the British English used by authors between the beginning of the Restoration and Johnson’s time (Section 4.3.2). Webster clearly stated this in the “Introduction” (1828: n. pag. [27th and 46th]) to his Dictionary (Section 4.3.2). He practised as he preached, and quoted often from such authors, hardly using citations from American authors (Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 5.1.2, etc.). (2) Like Johnson, Webster was more descriptive than prescriptive in the treatment of verbs of high frequency (Section 5.1.1) and focused on the senses of the words in their relevant entries (Sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.4). However, he did not supply as many biblical citations as Johnson (Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.3). Rather, he preferred to quote from as many sources as possible there (Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.4). (3) For prepositions and prepositional adverbs, Webster focused on their usages rather than senses, as Johnson had done (Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5). However, Webster made full use of biblical citations in their relevant entries, in contrast to Johnson (Section 6.1.4). (4) The more closely Webster instructed the usage of words, the less he became dependent on citations (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 to 8.2.3). He resembled Johnson in this respect, but the provision of biblical citations was exceptional. For instance, he instructed the usage of modal auxiliaries and primary verbs especially closely, and in their relevant entries he used biblical citations which had been strictly selected so that they might illustrate his instruction well (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 to 8.2.3). (5) Webster’s Dictionary is characterized by biblical citations, but it would be apparently against the facts to ascribe this characteristic entirely to his faith (Section 4.5.2). Rather, it is clear that Webster almost exclusively aimed to give instruction on English usage by means of them (Sections 4.5, 5.1.3, 6.1.4, etc.). In this practice, he can be regarded as having made use of the educational situation at his time in which religious education was highly valued (Section 1.5.3, 3.3.5 and 5.1.3). Actually, most of Webster’s biblical citations are far simpler than Johnson’s in terms of structure (Section 4.5.5 to 4.5.7, 5.1.3, etc.), and on some occasions he did not hesitate to change the wording of biblical passages so that they might be modernized (Sections 4.5.6 and 7.4). (6) A sixth characteristic of Webster’s Dictionary is his frequent provision of invented examples (Sections 4.4, 5.1.4, 5.2.2, etc.). He used them especially frequently in treating modal auxiliaries and primary verbs (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 to 8.2.3), the words whose usage Webster instructed most closely. As mentioned above, he also used the most strictly selected biblical citations for the treatment of the words (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.1.5, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3).

206

9.3

Specific Facts Concerning Webster’s Unique Lexicographic Practices

9.3.1 Historical Background to Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries In order to clarify the relations between Webster’s view of the language and his use of verbal examples, it was inevitable to analyse the historical background not only to his Dictionary but also to Johnson’s; this was because Johnson’s Dictionary had always been an indispensable reference work for Webster throughout his entire compilation process. As to Johnson’s Dictionary, it was compiled to meet the requirements of men of letters in the latter half of the seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth who ardently hoped to purify and stabilize the language (Section 3.1.1). For achieving this purpose, Johnson used two continental dictionaries, the Vocabolario degli Accademici de la Crusca (1612-) and the Dictionnaire de l’Académie Françoise (1694-) which had been published to refine the Italian and French languages, as indispensable reference works throughout his compilation process of the Dictionary (Sections 3.1.2 to 3.1.6). However, it should be noted that Johnson’s interest almost always lay in establishing the grammar and usage rather than the condition of the language of literature (Section 1.4). Though he was usually prescriptive in this respect, which was natural when the trend of linguistic thought at his time is taken into account, his view of grammar and usage exerted a strong influence to the extent that Joseph Priestley, a forerunner of descriptive grammarians, incorporated some of its unique aspects into his grammars (Section 3.2). In contrast to Johnson’s, Webster’s Dictionary was compiled with the growing demand for teaching the language to the American public as a backdrop, with little relevance to the literary world (Section 3.3.5). In this regard, how well his Dictionary matched the demand of the time was to be clearly reflected in the letters exchanged between publishing companies and the teachers of the language concerning the “dictionary war” which was waged between Webster’s camp and Joseph Worcester, another leading lexicographer in America in the first half of the nineteenth century (Section 3.3.4). That is, since Webster was originally a grammarian, his Dictionary was generally expected to contribute greatly to improve the language skills of the American public. Concerning his grammar, which had been formulated after several twists and turns, was more descriptive than prescriptive, though it was not divorced from prescriptivism in some unignorable aspects (Section 5.1.4). In this connection, it will be important to note that Webster took little trouble about establishing an American style of English by compiling his Dictionary (Sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.3).

9.3.2 Webster’s Modifications to the Structure of Entries in Johnson’s Dictionary For the purpose of gaining an appreciation of the structure of entries in Webster’s Dictionary, it will be necessary to overview that of Johnson’s at the same time. This is because the unique features of the former were produced mainly by modifying the latter. Then, it can be said from a broader perspective that, in formulating the structure of the entries in his Dictionary, Johnson was strongly influenced by the two continental dictionaries mentioned above (Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.6). Specifically, the renowned arrangement of numbered definitions in his Dictionary, which divides entries by the senses

207 and idioms of the entry word, is an extension of the style adopted in theVocabolario (Section 3.1.3); his use of citations can be regarded as following the model of the Vocabolario and that of invented examples as copying the precedent of the Dictionnaire (Section 3.1.4); and he is thought to have provided information on verbal inflections, also suggested by the Dictionnaire (Section 3.1.5). In addition to such influences by the two continental dictionaries, Johnson occasionally devised some particular ways of expressing his view of English grammar and usage effectively. Webster, according to his own needs, modified the structure of the entries in Johnson’s Dictionary in two respects: undivided long entries on prepositions and frequent provision of introductory remarks. (1) Webster’s Undivided Long Entries on Prepositions In Johnson’s case, he closely divided entries on prepositions according to the senses, ‘semantic concepts’ and usage of the words (Section 6.1.1). Webster, fully aware of the merits of the method, occasionally provided entries on the same words which are not divided into sub-entries. Specifically, he practised this in entries on at, from, in and of within the range of my analyses (Section 6.1.1). However, the practice never means that Webster made light of prepositions. For instance, his entry on of consists of 115 lines (Section 6.1.1). In terms of verbal examples, it includes 6 biblical passages as authoritative citations, 31 invented phrases and sentences and 1 citation from Franklin. Besides, in the entry, Webster also referred to prepositions other than of to make its senses and usage clear. The situation is similar as to the entries on at, from and in. In a sense, some of entries on prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary can be regarded as short articles whose contents would have been difficult to achieve by the method of sub-dividing entries. (2) Webster’s Frequent Provision of Introductory Remarks Johnson provided introductory remarks very rarely and almost only in the sphere of entries on modal auxiliaries (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.15). In contrast, Webster performed the practice much more frequently, not only in entries on modal auxiliaries (Section 8.1.2) but also in those on verbs of high frequency (Section 5.1.1) and prepositional adverbs (Section 6.2.4). For instance, in the entry on take (v.t.) (Section 5.1.1), which has 40 sub-entries, he made the following remarks which end with the word Thus and a comma: In a general sense, to get hold or gain possession of a thing in almost any manner, either by receiving it when offered, or by using exertion to obtain it. Take differs from seize, as it does not always imply haste, force or violence. It more generally denotes to gain or receive into possession in a peaceable manner, either passively or by active exertions. Thus,

Then, after Thus, Webster provided other sub-entries one after another. This indicates that the first sub-entry is an introduction to the following 39 sub-entries. Such a sub-entry for introductory remarks is in no way found in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary; Johnson simply stated the following in the first sub-entry on the word: To receive what is offered.

Webster’s modifications of the structure of the entries in Johnson’s Dictionary are not limited to the points mentioned above. However, the two examples will be enough to

208 suggest how Webster exercised his ingenuity to express his unique view of English grammar and usage.

9.3.3 Difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s Views on Usage Both Johnson and Webster had been torn between prescriptivism and descriptivism before they began to compile their dictionaries (Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3 and 1.5.2). There are some cases in their dictionaries where traces of such experiences are clearly evident. For instance, in treating the expression have got, Johnson seems to be descriptive and Webster prescriptive (Section 5.1.4). In the entry on get in his Dictionary, Johnson simply defined the expression as “To have possession of; to hold”. In contrast to this, Webster, in its corresponding entry, censured the use of have got and stated the following: This is a most common, but gross abuse of this word. We constantly hear it said, I have got no corn, I have got no money, she has got a fair complexion, when the person means only, I have no corn, I have no money, she has a fair complexion.

In the entry on averse, trying to prove the legitimacy of averse from, Johnson provided 2 sub-entries with relevant citations: one for the indication of the ‘correct’ collocation averse from, and the other for the ‘wrong’ collocation averse to (Section 7.4). In the former Johnson stated “It has most properly from before the object of aversion”, and in the latter “Very frequently, but improperly, to”. In contrast to this, Webster stated the following (Section 7.4): This word and its derivatives ought to be followed by to, and never by from. This word includes the idea of from; but the literal meaning being lost, the affection of the mind signified by the word, is exerted towards the object of dislike, and like its kindred terms, hatred, dislike, contrary, repugnant, &c., should be followed by to. Indeed it is absurd to speak of an affection of the mind exerted from an object. Averse expresses a less degree of opposition in the mind, than detesting and abhorring.

Webster, as a grammarian, was also keenly interested in etymology (Section 1.5.4) and knew the original sense of averse, but was essentially a lexicographer who attached much importance to language as a medium of communication. In conjunction with Johnson’s changing views on usage, it may be worth pointing out his use of the technical term ‘conjunctive mood’ (Section 8.2.3). In the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary, Johnson (1755: n. pag. [7th]) stated that “Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative”. According to Sterling Leonard (1962:200-209), the term ‘conjunctive mood’ which Johnson used here puzzled many grammarians at Johnson’s time, because most of them had been accustomed to use ‘subjunctive mood’ until Johnson’s Dictionary was published. As for Johnson, he (1755: n. pag. [6th-8th in the “Grammar”]) stipulated 4 moods in the language: the indicative, imperative, conjunctive and infinitive. The subjunctive mood was not included among these. In his “Grammar”, Johnson even claimed that:

209 The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded, or rather the conjunctive is wholly neglected, when some convenience of verification does not invite its revival. It is used among the purer writers after if, though, ere, before, whether, except, unless, whatsoever, whomsoever, and words of wishing; as, Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not. (1755: n. pag. [8th in the “Grammar”])

However, in the fourth edition of his Dictionary, Johnson used the term ‘subjunctive’ as follows in the entry on wert, which had not been present in the first edition: [...] the second person singular of the subjunctive imperfect of To be. Thou wert heard. Ben. Johnson. O that thou wert as my brother. Cant. viii. 1. All join’d, and thou of many wert but one. Dryden.

This can be regarded as evidence of the fact that Johnson’s view of grammar changed after he published the first edition of his Dictionary.

9.3.4 The Modernity of Webster’s View of Usage As mentioned in the previous sub-section, Webster was prescriptive about have got and descriptive about averse. However, his statements in the respective entries are both in accord with the view of contemporary lexicographers, offering a glimpse of modernity in his view of usage. For instance, concerning have got, the COBUILD reads (Section 5.1.4): [...] ‘have’ alone would be correct but more formal. The word got itself adds nothing to the meaning of ‘have’. The form have got looks as if it is the auxiliary ‘have’ followed by the past participle of the verb ‘get’, but it is used with the same meanings as the main verb ‘have’, in the senses of owning or possessing things.

On averse, the OED reads (Section 7.4): [...] although condemned by Johnson as etymologically improper, is justified by the consideration that these words express a mental relation analogous to that indicated by hostile, contrary, repugnant, hostility, opposition, dislike, and naturally take the same constitution. Aversion in the sense of an action, which would be properly followed by from, is now obsolete.

Webster’s modernity in his view of English usage will be further confirmed when we read his treatment of shall and should. Concerning the former, in the entry on shall, we see Webster the etymologist and grammarian integrated with Webster the lexicographer and teacher of the language for the American public at his time (Section 8.1.2). At the beginning of the first sub-entry in the entry, Webster quoted sentences from Old English literature, which are not seen in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary, to show the original use of shall; he claimed there that the word had not been a modal auxiliary. However, he was not a person clinging to the archaic usage of the word, stating that “the signification of shall is considerably deflected from its primitive sense” and that “It is now

210 treated as a mere auxiliary to other verbs, serving to form some of the tenses”. Then, he provided 60 lines of comments on the senses and usage of shall at his time. As to Webster’s treatment of should, he uniquely treated the function of should which has been of interest to modern grammarians (Section 8.1.3). This is called ‘emotional should ’ by Otto Jespersen (1933) and ‘putative should’ ’ by Randolph Quirk et al. (1985). In treating this function of the word, Webster stated the following: “We think it strange that stones should fall from the aerial regions.” In this use should implies that stones do fall. In all similar phrases, should implies the actual existence of the fact, without a condition or supposition.

This statement agrees with Quirk et al. ’s (1985:234) that “In using should, the speaker entertains, as it were, some ‘putative’ world, recognizing that it may well exist or come into existence”. Though brief and limited, Webster’s description of the use of the word is clear, and he also supplied verbal examples there. His treatment of such a function of should indicates that he was a pioneer of modern scholarly grammar of English.

9.3.5 Webster’s Development of Johnson’s Treatment of Words and Phrases Webster not only provided information on the usage of words which is not seen in Johnson’s Dictionary, he also developed Johnson’s treatment of words and phrases. To exemplify this point, I will compare Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of certain collocations and compound words here. (1) Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Verb-preposition and Adjective-preposition Collocations Stefania Nuccorini’s paper ‘Towards an “ideal” dictionary of English collocations’ (2003) could be used to support the claim that Johnson and Webster were, respectively, forerunners of modern lexicographers treating verb-preposition and adjective-preposition collocations (Section 7.6). Webster dealt with a considerable number of such collocations, reflecting his keen interest in prepositional usage (Section 7.1). Although disregarding 5 of Johnson's treatments of such collocations, Webster added 20 new relevant descriptions (Sections 7.2 and 7.5). For the purpose of illustrating these newly added descriptions, he utilised biblical passages irrespective of his religious faith. (2) Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Compound Words In entries on prepositional adverbs, Johnson showed his interest in treating compound words (Section 6.2.3). Specifically, in a sub-entry on over, stating that “In composition it has a great variety of significations; it is arbitrarily prefixed to nouns, adjectives, or other parts of speech in a sense equivalent to more than enough; too much”, Johnson supplied 18 citations which include various compound words formed with over and other words. Not satisfied with this, he further provided no less than 60 entries on words beginning with over. Like Johnson, Webster was also interested in compound words (Section 6.2.4). However, Webster’s treatment of these words seems to have been more skilful than Johnson in

211 discriminating their senses. Johnson referred to compound words with over with the recognition that over in them had the sense “more than enough; too much” only. Differently from this practice, Webster pointed out the senses of “spreading, covering above”, “across” and “changing sides”, as well as “excess or superiority”, of the same word in the entry on over in relation to compound words. In this sense, Webster can be said to have been even more skilful than Johnson in discriminating the senses of the word. Webster also referred to compound words with after in its relevant entry as follows: After is prefixed to many words, forming compounds, but retaining its genuine signification. Some of the following words are of this kind, but in some of them after seems rather to be a separate word.

Stating this, Webster provided many entries on related compound words as his words “Some of the following words are of this kind [...]” indicate. That is, the last part of the entry on after in Webster’s Dictionary is also an introductory remark to entries on the respective compound words. After this statement concerning compound words with after, Webster provided 50 entries on the words including after-account, after-ages, after-band, after-birth and after-clap.

9.3.6 Webster’s Use of Johnson’s Citations In Section 9.2.5, I discussed the Johnson’s usual practice in supplying citations. In this subsection, I will indicate two types of Webster’s use of Johnson’s citations; one reveals the differences between Johnson’s and Webster’s recognition of words, and the other signifies Webster’s unique use of Johnson’s citations. (1) Johnson’s and Webster’s Recognition of Words Webster borrowed numerous citations from Johnson’s Dictionary to express his recognition of words which was different from Johnson’s. I will confirm here a few examples which concern Webster’s attribution of parts of speech and that of the senses of words. As to the former, the citations which Johnson and Webster supplied in the entries on last and set can be mentioned. Firstly, in his treatment of the idiom at last, Johnson supplied a biblical citation “Gad, a troop shall overcome him: but he shall overcome at the last ” in the entry on the word last as a noun (Section 4.5.6), while Webster supplied the very same citation in the entry on the word last as an adjective (Section 4.5.6). Secondly, both lexicographers supplied a biblical citation “Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set, by reason of his age” in their dictionaries. Webster allocated it to the entry on the word set as a transitive verb, while Johnson used it in the entry on the word as an intransitive verb (Section 5.1.3). With regard to the latter, citations which concern the differences in the recognition of the senses of words, Webster sometimes separated a bunch of citations which are supplied in a single sub-entry in Johnson’s Dictionary and allocated each to different sub-entries (Sections 4.5.6, 5.1.3 and 5.1.4). The theory is widely accepted that Johnson quite closely divided the senses of words. Actually, in some entries in Johnson’s Dictionary, the number of sub-entries is larger than that in the OED. However, Webster’s mentioned above shows the fact that he occasionally examined the senses of words even more closely than Johnson.

212 Webster occasionally examined the senses of words, e.g. of verbs of high frequency, even more closely than Johnson (Section 5.1.1). Thus, Webster divided 9 entries into more subentries than Johnson, based on the specific senses of their words: break (v.t), break (v.i.), cast (v.i.), fall (v.t.), give (v.t.), make (v.t.), set (v.t.), run (v.i.) and run (v.t.). In the entry on run (v.i.), for example, Webster provided 56 sub-entries, compared with Johnson’s 43. Besides, in contradiction to widely accepted view, Webster treated the figurative senses of some words in a manner which was very different from Johnson’s (Section 4.4). (2) Webster’s Unique Use of Johnson’s Citations Webster quite often used Johnson’s citations in various ways which Johnson could never have imagined. To illustrate this point, I will refer to a few examples of Webster’s treatment of prepositional usage and elliptical expressions. Concerning the former, one example is that Johnson supplied the biblical citation “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly” in the entry on learn (v.n.) for the sense “To take pattern” (Section 4.5.6). Webster used this citation for the meaning “To gain or receive knowledge; to receive instruction; to take pattern; with of ” in the corresponding entry (Section 4.5.6). As to the latter, Webster developed an interest in treating elliptical expressions, which Johnson had never referred to within the whole range of my analysis. In treating this type of expression, Webster consistently availed himself of Johnson’s citations, e.g. in 4 subentries on verbs of high frequency (Section 5.1.4) and 1 sub-entry on a modal auxiliary (Section 8.1.3).

9.3.7 Webster’s Invented Examples Johnson used several invented examples in entries on prepositional adverbs (Section 6.2.3) and a considerable number of them in entries on modal auxiliaries (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.1.5). In contrast, Webster supplied quite a few invented examples throughout the whole range of his Dictionary; it is estimated that approximately 2,000 such examples can be found within the range of 2,024 entries on words for the letter L (Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4). As to Johnson’s use of invented examples, he almost always supplied them with usage notes and usually without citations. The most conspicuous example is the following (Section 8.1.3): J: SHOULD. v.n. 1-5. 1. This is a kind of auxiliary verb used in the conjunctive mood, of which the signification is not easily fixed. 2. I SHOULD go. It is my business or duty to go. 3. If I SHOULD go. If it happens that I go. 4. Thou SHOULD’ST go. Thou oughtest to go. 5. If thou SHOULD’ST go. If it happens that thou goest.

As for Webster, who seems to have been well aware of such examples as above, made use of and developed the methods revealed in them and supplied invented examples in at least 3 ways (as shown in Section 4.4).

213

9.4

Final Remarks and New Horizons of Research

It may now be concluded, after reflecting on the process of the analyses (Section 9.2) and citing major specific examples from the data assembled in Chapters 1 to 8 (Section 9.3), that essentially Johnson’s Dictionary is not a literary dictionary and Webster’s is not encyclopaedic. They are fundamentally dictionaries of the language. In compiling them, Johnson utilized his knowledge of literary works for the purpose of giving guidance on the usage of words, and Webster used the dictionary text to express his view of grammar. For the latter, the provision of encyclopaedic information in his Dictionary was of secondary importance, however innovative it may have been in the history of English lexicography. In this project, I attempted to reveal the relationship between Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples, their views of the language and the usage of words. In addition to resulting in quite a few findings which verify such facts, the project seems to have opened doors to promising investigations of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries and the development of American lexicography as well as the wider historical study of English lexicography. Specifically, there are at least three points which indicate the need for further research, and I will finish the thesis by referring to these as follows: (1) In treating inflected forms of verbs of high frequency, it has been proved that Webster’s view of the usage of the words considerably differs from Johnson’s (Section 5.2). In conjunction with this, it would be meaningful to compare their view of morphology in general which are reflected in the dictionaries. (2) The project clarified that Johnson and Webster very frequently gave indications of the usage of words by means of verbal examples, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly. It would be worthwhile to put such indications in systematic order so that the relationship between each of them may be clarified with the provision of an appropriate method for it. (3) From a wider perspective, there is a probability that the foundation of American lexicography was laid through the ‘dictionary war’ waged between Webster’s camp and Worcester (Section 3.3.4). With this recognition in mind, some authorities have compared the dictionaries of Webster’s with those of Worcester (Section 3.3.4). However, as far as I can judge, how the use of verbal examples had developed in the ‘war’ has not been clarified. It seems that a sampling method and a statistical method which I have adopted in the project might be useful for future investigations.

214

Bibliography

I

Cited Dictionaries and Other Sources

AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGe (1st edition) (2 vols.) by Noah Webster (1828). Facsimile reprint, New York and London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1970. AN AMERICAN GLOSSARY (an enlarged edition) (introduction by Margaret M. Bryant) by Richard L. Thornton (1962). New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co. COLLINS COBUILD ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARY (1st edition) by John Sinclair, et. al. (eds) (1987). London and Glasgow: Collins. A COMPENDIOUS DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGe by Noah Webster (1806). Facsimile reprint, New York: Crown Publishers, 1970. THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH (6th edition) by J. B. Sykes (ed.) (1976). Oxford: Clarendon Press. DICTIONARIUM BRITANNICUM (2nd edition) by Nathan Bailey (1736). London: Printed for T. Cox. A DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES (4 vols.) by Sir William A. Craigie and James R. Hulbert (ed.) (1938-44). Chicago, Illiniois: The University of Chicago Press. A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1st edition) (2 vols.) by Samuel Johnson (1755). Facsimile reprint, Tokyo: Yushodo, 1983. A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (an abridged edition of the 1st edition) (2 vols.) by Samuel Johnson (1756). Facsimile reprint, Tokyo: Kenkyusha, 1985. A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th edition) (2 vols.) by Samuel Johnson (1773). Facsimile reprint (introduction by James L. Clifford), Beirut, Lebanon: Librarie du Liban, 1978. DICTIONNAIRE DE L’ACADÉMIE FRANÇOISE (3rd edition) (2 vols.) by L’Académie Françoise (1740). Paris: Jean-Baptiste Coignard. ETYMOLOGICON LINGUAE ANGLICANAE by Stephen Skinner (1671). Facsimile reprint, Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1970. GAZOPHYLACIUM ANGLICANUM by an anonymous author (1689). Facsimile reprint, Menston: Scolar Press, 1969. THE HOLY BIBLE: AN EXACT REPRINT IN ROMAN TYPE, PAGE FOR PAGE OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1611 (introduction by Alfred W. Pollard) by Oxford University Press (ed) (1985). Oxford: Oxford University Press. THE HOLY BIBLE, CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, IN THE COMMON VERSION: WITH THE AMENDMENTS OF THE LANGUAGE by Noah Webster (1833). New Haven: Hezekiah Home & Co., and A. H. Maltby. A NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY by J. K. (1702). Facsimile reprint, Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1974. OXFORD ADVANCED LEARNER’S DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH (4th edition) by Anthony P. Cowie, et. al. (eds) (1989). Oxford: Oxford University Press. THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2nd edition) (20 vols.) by J.A. Simpson, E.S.C. Weiner, et. al. (eds) (1989). Oxford: Clarendon Press, and New York: Oxford University Press. VOCABOLARIO DEGLI ACCADEMICI DE LA CRUSCA (1st edition) (1612) by Gli Accademici de la Crusca. Facsimile reprint, Firenze: Le Lettere, 1987.

215

II

Cited Books and Papers

Aarsleff, Hans (1967), The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Allen, Harold B. (1977), ‘Reactions in Johnson’s Dictionary to some of Shakespeare’s vocabulary’, in: Hobar, Donald (ed.) Papers of the Dictionary Society of North America 1977. Terre Haute, Indiana: Indiana State University, 1-8. Atkinson, A. D. (1950), ‘Dr. Johnson and Science’, Notes and Quiries, CXCV, 338-341. Bately, Janet A. (1964), ‘Dryden’s revisions in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy’, Review of English Studies, XV, 268-282. Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas (2002), A History of the English Language (5th edition). London and New York: Routledge. Béjoint, Henri (1994), Tradition and Innovation in Modern English Dictionaries (Oxford Studies in Lexicography and Lexicology). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Benson, Morton and Ilson, Robert (1986), Lexicographical Description of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bolton, Whitney French (1982), A Living Language: the History and Structure of English. New York: Random House. Boulton, James T. (ed.) (1971), Johnson: Critical Heritage (the Critical Heritage Seriese, vol. 68). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Brewer, Charlotte (1999), ‘OED sources’ in Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.) Lexicography and the ‘OED’: Pioneers in the Untrodden Forest, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 40-58. Burchfield, Robert W. (1985), The English Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Close, R. A. (1981), English as a Foreign Language: Its Constant Grammatical Problems (3rd edition), London: George Allen & Unwin. Cowie, Anthony P. (1989), ‘The language of examples in English learners’ dictionaries’, in: James, Gregory (ed.) Lexicographers and Their Works (Exeter Linguistic Studies, vol. 14), Exeter: University of Exeter, 55-65. Cubberley, Ellwood Patterson (ed.) (1920), Readings in the History of Education: a Collection of Sources and Readings to Illustrate the Development of educational Practice, Theory and Organization. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. DeMaria, Robert, Jr. (1986), Johnson’s ‘Dictionary’ and the Language of Learning. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Downes, Rackstraw (1962), ‘Johnson’s theory of language’, Review of English Literature, III, 29-41. Drabble, Margaret (ed.) (1985), The Oxford Companion to English Literature (new edition). Oxford, New York, Tokyo and Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Dryden, John (1679), Troilus and Cressida. Reprint, Novak, Maximillian E. et al. (eds), The Works of John Dryden vol. 13. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, 217-355. Fleeman, David J. (1984), ‘Dr Johnson’s Dictionary, 1755’, in: Yung, Kai Kin (ed.) Samuel Johnson 1709-84 (published to accompany an exhibition held at the Art's Council premises at 105 Piccadilly, London, 1984), London: The Herbert Press Ltd, 37-45. Freed, Lewis (1939), ‘The sources of Johnson’s dictionary’ (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation at Cornell University). Friend, Joseph Harold (1967), The Development of American Lexicography 1798-1864. Hague: Mouton. Gibson, Martha Jane (1936), ‘America’s first lexicographer Samuel Johnson Jr., 1757-1836’, American Speech XI, 283-292.

216 Hall, Robert A., Jr. (1974), External History of the Romance Languages (Foundations of Linguistic Series, Comparative Romance Grammar, vol. 1). New York: American Pub. Co. Hartmann, Reinhard R. K. and James, Gregory (1998) (revised and paperback edition published in 2001), Dictionary of Lexicography, London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Hayashi, Tetsuro (1978), The Theory of English Lexicography 1530-1791 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies in the History of Linguistics, vol. 18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hill, George Birkbeck (ed.) (1897), Johnsonian Miscellanies (2 vols.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ikeda, Makoto (1999), Competing Grammars: Noah Webster’s Vain Efforts to Defeat Lindley Murray. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin. Ikegami, Yoshihiko (1971), Noah Webster’s Grammar: Traditions and Innovations: a Critical Study on Early English Grammars Published in the United States (The Proceedings of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, College of General Education, University of Tokyo vol. XIX, no. 2). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Jespersen, Otto (1933), Essentials of English Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin. Johnson, Samuel (1747), The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language. Facsimile reprint, Menston: Scolar Press, 1970. – (1779), The Life of Dryden. Reprint, The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL. D. vol. 7. London: Talboys and Wheeler, and William Pickering, 1825, 245-360. Kojima, Yoshiro (1999), Eigo-jisho no Hensen: Ei Bei Nippon wo Awasemite (The Historical Change in English Dictionaries: Its Comparative Assessment in Britain, America and Japan). Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Kolb, Gwin J. and Ruth A. (1972), ‘The selection and use of the illustrative quotations in Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary’, in: Weinbrot, Howard D. (ed.), New Aspects of Lexicography: Literary Criticism, Intellectual History, and Social Change, Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 61-72. Krapp, George Philip (1925), The English Language in America (2 vols.). New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Laird, Charlton Grant (1972), Language in America reissued (originally published, Cleveland: World Publishing, 1970). London: Englewood Cliffs. Landau, Sidney I. (1984), Dictionaries: the Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (1975), A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman. Leonard, Sterling Andrus (1962), The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800 (a reissued edition) (originally published in 1929 as Number 25 in the University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature). New York: Russell & Russell. Long, Ralph B. (1961), The Sentence and Its Parts: A Grammar of Contemporary English. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lowth, Robert (1762), A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Facsimile Reprint, Menston: Scolar Press, 1969. McAdam, Edward L., Jr. and Milne, George (eds) (1963), Johnson’s Dictionary: a Modern Selection. New York: Pantheon Books. McArthur, Tom (1986), Worlds of Reference: Lexicography, Learning and Language from the Clay Tablet to the Computer. Cambridge: Cambridge University. – (ed.) (1992), The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Malone, Kemp (1925), ‘A linguistic patriot’, American Speech, I, 26-31. Metzger, Bruce M. (2001), The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

217 Micklethwait, David (2000), Noah Webster and the American Dictionary. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. Migliorini, Bruno (1983), Storia della Lingua Italiana (7th edition). Firenze: Sansoni Editore. Miyoshi, Kusujiro (1982), ‘A study of American English dictionaries with special reference to Noah Webster’ (unpublished master’s dissertation at Kansai University of Foreign Studies). – (1984), ‘Priestley’s grammar and Johnson’s Dictionary’, Studies in Modern English I, 7-14. – (1987), ‘Priestley no eibunten to Johnson no eigojiten’ (‘Priestley’s Rudiments and Johnson’s Dictionary’), The Journal of Okayama Women’s Junior College, X, 49-57. – (1989), ‘Johnson no jiten: yourei no gogakushiteki igi’ (‘Johnson’s Dictionary: the linguistic significance of its citations’), The Journal of Okayama Women’s Junior College, XII, 125-133. – (1990), ‘A linguistic approach to Webster’s quotations from the Bible’, in: Nagashima, Daisuke and Mizutori, Yoshitaka (eds) Essays in Honor of Professor Haruo Kozu: On the Occasion of His Retirement from Kansai University of Foreign Studies, Osaka: The Intercultural Research Institute Kansai Universities of Foreign Studies, 163-181. – (1992), ‘J. K.’s dictionary (1702) reconsidered’, in: Tommola, Hannu et al. (eds) Euralex ’92 Proceedings I-II: Papers Submitted to the 5th EURALEX International Congress on Lexicography in Tampere, Finland, Part II (Studia Translatologica, Publications of the Department of Translation Studies, University of Tampere, Finland, ser. A, vol. 2). Tampere: Tampereen Yliopisto, 601-606. – (1997), ‘S. Johnson to tairiku no gengo academy: hin’yodoshi no koumoku wo chushin ni’ (‘The influence of continental language academies on S. Johnson: his treatment of verbs of high frequency’), Journal of Soka Women’s College, XII, 63-77. Morton, Herbert C. (1994), The Story of ‘Webster’s Third’: Philip Gove’s Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, James (1900), The Evolution of English Lexicography. Reprint, College Park, Maryland: McGarth Publishing Company, 1970. Nagashima, Daisuke (1974), Eibei no Jisho: Rekishi to Genjo (English Dictionaries: Past and Present). Tokyo: Kenkyusha. – (1983), Johnson-no Eigo-jiten: Sono Rekishiteki Igi (Johnson’s Dictionary: Its Historical Significance). Tokyo: Taishukan. – (1988), Johnson the Philologist (Kansai University of Foreign Studies Intercultural Research Institute Monograph, no. 20). Osaka: The Intercultural Research Institute, Kansai University of Foreign Studies. Nuccorini, Stefania. (2003), ‘Towards an “ideal” dictionary of English collocations’, in: Sterkenbur, Piet van (ed.) A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 366-387. Osselton, Noel E. (1994), ‘Dr Johnson and the spelling of dispatch’’, International Journal of Lexicography, vol. 7, no. 4, 307-310. – (1995), Chosen Words: Past and Present Problems for Dictionary Makers (Exeter Linguistic Studies). Exeter: University of Exeter. Priestley, Joseph (1761), The Rudiments of English Grammar (1st edition). Facsimile reprint, Mensston: Scolar Press,1969. – (1762), A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. Reprint, Yamakawa, Kikuo (ed.), Joseph Priestley’s ‘The Rudiments of English Grammar’ and ‘A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar’ with Explanatory Remarks by Kikuo Yamakawa (A Reprint Series of Books Relating to the English Language, vol. 14), Tokyo: Nan’un-do, 1971, 141-273. – (1769), The Rudiments of English Grammar (2nd edition). Reprint, Yamakawa, Kikuo (ed.), Joseph Priestley’s ‘The Rudiments of English Grammar’ and ‘A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar’ with Explanatory Remarks by Kikuo Yamakawa (A Reprint Series of Books Relating to the English Language, vol. 14), Tokyo: Nan’un-do, 1971, 7-137.

218 Pyles, Thomas (1954), Words and Ways of American English: an Authoritative Account of the Origins, Growth and Present State of the English Language in America. London: Andrew Melrose. Quinlan, Maurice J. (1964), Samuel Johnson: a Layman’s Religion. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Quirk, Randolph, et. al. (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman. Read, Allen Walker (1967), ‘The spread of German linguistic learning in New England during the lifetime of Noah Webster’, American Speech XLI, 163-181. – (1979), ‘The war of the dictionaries in the Middle West’ in Congleton, J. E. et. al. (eds) Papers in Lexicography in Honor of Warren N. Cordell, Terre Haute, Indiana: The Dictionary Society of North America, 3-15. – (1986a), ‘Competing lexicographical traditions in America’, in: Hartmann, Reinhard R. K. (ed.) The History of Lexicography: Papers from the Dictionary Research Centre Seminar at Exeter, March 1986 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, vol. 40), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 197-206. – (1986b), ‘The history of lexicography’, in: Ilson, Robert (ed.) Lexicography: an Emerging International Profession, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 28-50. Reddick, Allen (1996), The Making of Johnson’s Dictionary 1746-1773 (a revised and first paperback edition) (first published, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reed, Joseph W., Jr. (1962), ‘Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson’, American Speech, XXXVII, 95-105. Roe, Keith (1977), ‘A survey of the encyclopedic tradition in English Dictionaries’ in Hobar, Donald (ed.) Papers of the Dictionary Society of North America 1977. Terre Haute, Indiana: Indiana State University, 16-23. Rollins, Richard M. (1980), The Long Journey of Noah Webster. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Schreyer, Rüdiger (2000), ‘Illustrations of authority quotations in Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language’, Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography, XVI, 58-103. Sherbo, Arthur (1956), Samuel Johnson: Editor of Shakespeare with an Essay on ‘The Adventurer’ (Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, vol. 42). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Siebert, Donald T. (1986), ‘Bubbled, bamboozled, and bit: “low bad” words in Johnson’s Dictionary’, Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, vol. 26, no. 3, 485-496. Simon, Irène (1963), ‘Dryden’s revision of the Essay of Dramatic Poesy’, Review of English Studies, XIV, 132-141. Sledd, James H. and Kolb, Gwin J. (1955), Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary: Essays in the Biography of a Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, James W. (1979), ‘A sketch of the history of the dictionary of English usage’, in: Congleton, J. E. et. al. (eds) Papers in Lexicography in Honor of Warren N. Cordell, Terre Haute, Indiana: The Dictionary Society of North America, 47-58. Starnes, De Witt T. and Noyes, Gertrude E. (1991), The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson, 1604-1755 (a reissued edition) (introduction by Gabriele Stein) (first published, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1946) (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, vol. 57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stein, Gabriele (1985), The English Dictinary before Cawdrey (Lexicographica Series Maior 9). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Stenberg, Theodore (1944), ‘Quotations from Pope in Johnson’s dictionary’, Studies in English, vol. 17, no. 97, 197-210. Struble, Mildred C. (1933), A Johnson Handbook. New York: F. S. Crofts & Co.

219 Sundby, Bertil (1985), ‘Writing a dictionary of normative grammar’, in: Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl and Zettersten, Arne (eds) Symposium on Lexicography II: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Lexicography, May 16-17, 1984 at the University of Copenhagen (Lexicographica Series Maior 5), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 157-168. – (ed.) (1991), A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar, 1700-1800 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies in the History of the Linguistic Science, vol. 63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Swift, Jonathan (1712), A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue. Facsimile reprint, Menston: Scolar Press, 1969. Tooke, John Horne (1798), üŒ0. Œ20! 02. RU 7KH 'LYHUVLRQV RI 3XUOH\ vol. 1. Facsimile Reprint, Menston: Scolar Press, 1968. Trench, Richard C. (1857), On Some Deficiencies in Our English Dictionaries (Transactions of the Philological Society 1857). London: J. W. Parker. Wahba, Magdi (ed.) (1962), Johnsonian Studies: Including a Bibliography of Johnsonian Studies, 1950-1960 Compiled by James L. Clifford and Donald J. Greene. Cairo: Société Orientale de Publicité Press. Wakelin, Martyn F. (1987), ‘The treatment of dialect in English dictionaries’, in: Burchfield, Robert (ed.) Studies in Lexicography, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 156-177. Watt, Ian (1962), ‘Dr. Johnson and the literature of experience’, in: Wahba, Magdi (ed.) Johnsonian Studies: Including a Bibliography of Johnsonian Studies, 1950-1960 Compiled by James L. Clifford and Donald J. Greene. Cairo: Société Orientale de Publicité Press, 15-22. Webster, Noah. (1789), Dissertations on the English Language: with Notes, Historical and Critical. Facsimile reprint, Menston: Scolar Press, 1967. Weinbrot, Howard D. (1972), ‘Samuel Johnson’s Plan and preface to the Dictionary: the growth of a lexicographer’s mind’, in: H. D. Weinbrot, Haward D. (ed.) New Aspects of Lexicography: Literary Criticism, Intellectual History, and Social Change, Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 73-94. Wells, Ronald A. (1973), Dictionaries and the Authoritarian Tradition: a Study in English Usage and Lexicography. Hague: Mouton. Wimsatt, William K., Jr. (1941), The Prose Style of Samuel Johnson (Yale Studies in English, vol. 94). New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. – (1959), ‘Johnson’s dictionary: April 15, 1955’ in Hilles, Frederick W. (ed.) New Light on Dr. Johnson: Essays on the Occasion of His 250th Birthday, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 65-90. Yamakawa, Kikuo (ed.) (1971), Joseph Priestley’s ‘The Rudiments of English Grammar’ and ‘A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar’ with Explanatory Remarks by Kikuo Yamakawa (A Reprint Series of Books Relating to the English Language, vol. 14), Tokyo: Nan’un-do.

220

Indices

I

Index of Personsonal Names

Aarsleff, Hans, 24, 35, 133 Addison, Joseph, 38, 39, 69, 70, 71, 78, 80, 106, 114, 124, 174, 187, 191 Allen, Harold, 13, 14 Allestree, Richard, 39, 182, 183 Arbuthnot, John, 69, 71 Atkinson, A.D., 10, 11 Bacon, Francis, 69, 71, 78, 79, 88, 106, 114, 182 Barker, Edmund, 24 Barlett, John, 59 Bately, Janet, 139, 140 Baugh, Albert, 23, 24, 55, 56, 80, 163 Béjoint, Henri, 7 Benson, Morton, 7, 58, 120 Bentham, Jeremy, 23 Berkeley, George, 39 Boethius, 174 Boswell, James, 23 Boulton, James, 21, 76, 79 Bournet, 174 Boyle, Robert, 69, 114 Brewer, Charlotte, 14, 32 Broome, William, 114 Browne, Thomas, 69, 71, 73 Bryant, Margaret, 59 Budgell, Eustace, 39 Burchfield, Robert, 70, 71 Burnet, Thomas, 114 Butler, Samuel, 114 Campbell, George, 163 Cawdrey, Robert, 31 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 70, 175 Clarendon, Earl of (Edward Hyde), 163, 164 Cleaveland, Moses (?), 80 Close, R., 180 Cowie, Anthony, 35 Craigie, William, 59 Cubberley, Ellwood, 62, 63, 64

Daniel, Samuel, 114, 182 DeMaria, Robert, 10, 11, 12, 35, 36 Downes, Rackstraw, 8, 13, 139 Drabble, Margaret, 39 Dryden, John, 42, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80, 105, 106, 114, 116, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 146, 148, 160, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170, 174, 180, 182, 184, 190, 201, 204 Fleeman, David, 14, 70, 71 Fowler, Francis, 105 Fowler, Henry, 105 Franklin, Benjamin, 80, 131, 132, 207 Freed, Lewis, 39, 69, 70, 72 Friend, Joseph, 27, 29, 30, 31, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 76, 80, 82 Gay, John, 39, 72 Gibson, Martha, 64, 65 Godwin, William, 23 Grew, Nehemiah, 114, 187 Grimm, Jacob, 25 Hamilton, Alexander, 80 Hanmer, Thomas, 75, 105, 204 Harris, John, 75, 105 Hartmann, Reinhard, 2, 4, 5, 173 Harwood, Edward, 40 Hayashi, Tetsuro, 7, 8, 12, 14, 36, 49, 50, 71 Hill, George, 10 Hill, John, 75, 105, 204 Hooker, Richard, 69, 71, 114 Hulbert, James, 59 Ikeda, Makoto, 18, 19, 64 Ikegami, Yoshihiko, 17, 19, 22, 129 Irving, Washington, 80 James, Gregory, 4, 5, 173 Jespersen, Otto, 180, 210 Johnson, Samuel (Jr.), 65 Johnston, William, 64, 65 Jones, William, 23, 24, 25

221 Jonson, Ben, 114, 182 K., J., 48 Kent, James (?), 80 Kojima, Yoshiro, 32 Kolb, Gwin, 1, 7, 13, 36, 42, 49, 50, 52, 72, 73 Kolb, Ruth, 36, 72, 73 Kozu, Haruo, 1 Krapp, George, 27, 64, 65, 80 L’Estrange, Roger, 69 Laird, Charlton, 17, 23, 24, 27, 61, 63 Landau, Sidney, 2, 17, 23, 24 Leech, Geoffrey, 34 Leonard, Sterling, 5, 34, 35, 50, 53, 55, 129, 157, 163, 164, 195, 208 Locke, John, 69, 78, 79, 114, 182 Long, Ralph, 172 Lowth, Robert, 50, 51, 53, 55, 129, 163 Malone, Kemp, 55, 57 Mason, George, 80 Mathews, Mitford, 27 McAdam, Edward, 10, 11, 13, 14, 72 McArthur, Tom, 5, 34, 81 Metzger, Bruce, 40 Micklethwait, David, 25, 30, 31, 75, 76, 81, 83, 99 Migliorini, Bruno, 43, 44 Miller, Philip, 75, 105, 204 Milne, George, 10, 11, 13, 14, 72 Milton, John, 54, 69, 78, 79, 80, 114, 182 Miyoshi, Kusujiro, 1, 48 Morton, Herbert, 17, 58, 84 Murray, James, 12, 26, 27, 55, 173, 187 Murray, Lindley, 19, 64, 163 Nagashima, Daisuke, 14, 31, 32, 51, 76, 101 Noyes, Gertrude, 1, 49, 50 Nuccorini, Stefania, 170, 210 Osselton, Noel, 14, 26, 72, 173, 187 Paine, Thomas, 23 Perry, William, 64, 65 Phillips, John, 39 Pickering, John, 59 Pope, Alexander, 31, 39, 69, 71, 78, 80, 190 Priestley, Joseph, 1, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 170, 206 Prior, Matthew, 69, 71, 148

Pyles, Thomas, 19, 21, 63, 64, 80, 98, 99 Quinlan, Maurice, 10, 11, 40 Quirk, Randolph, 35, 127, 147, 157, 158, 171, 180, 183, 186, 188, 210 Raleigh, Walter, 71, 72 Ramsay, David, 80 Read, Allen, 13, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 39, 57, 61, 69, 70, 72, 76, 132, 133 Reddick, Allen, 39 Reed, Joseph, 3, 20, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 58, 59, 80, 84, 120, 123, 198 Roe, Keith, 4 Rollins, Richard, 27, 56, 57, 58, 64 Rymer, Thomas, 166 Schreyer, Rüdiger, 47 Shakespeare, William, 13, 35, 69, 70, 71, 74, 78, 79, 105, 106, 114, 135, 138, 148, 161, 167, 170, 182, 187 Sherbo, Arthur, 13 Sidney, Philip, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 79, 198, 201, 204 Siebert, Donald, 14 Simon, Irène, 139, 140 Sledd, James, 1, 7, 13, 42, 49, 50, 52 Smith, James, 59 South, Robert, 69 Spenser, Edmund, 69, 70, 78 Starnes, De Witt, 1, 49, 50 Steele, Richard, 38 Stein, Gabriele, 31 Stenberg, Theodore, 30, 31, 39, 69 Struble, Mildred, 139 Sundby, Bertil, 34 Svartvik, Jan, 34 Swift, Jonathan, 35, 39, 43, 69, 70, 71, 78, 138, 161, 163, 164 Thomson, Charles, 40 Thornton, Richard, 59 Tillotson, John, 114 Tooke, Horne, 23, 24, 25, 132, 133 Trench, Richard, 36 Wakelin, Martyn, 9, 12 Walsh, Michael, 80 Watt, Ian, 12 Watts, Isaac, 69, 72 Weinbrot, Howard, 7, 14, 128

222 Wells, Ronald, 7, 14, 16, 21, 35, 60, 151 Wilkins, John, 114 Wimsatt, William, 10, 11, 12, 35, 36, 43, 83, 139, 140

II

Withers, Phillip, 163 Worcester, Joseph, 61, 64, 65, 206, 213 Yamakawa, Kikuo, 70, 71

Index of Words

abase, 81 about, 143, 144, 154 after, 142, 150, 152, 210 am, 192 angry, 161 are, 193 ashamed, 161 at, 138 averse, 163,164, 208 be, 189 bear, 103, 110, 115, 118 bearing, 125 been, 193 before, 137, 142, 153, 155 believe, 166 below, 155 bore, 123 break, 103, 108, 117 breaking, 125 broke, 123 broken, 123, 124 by, 145 came, 123 can, 184, 185 cast, 109, 117 casting, 125 cent, 60 come, 109, 112, 113. 123 coming, 125 comment, 167 compunctious, 22 consist, 169 corresponsive, 22 could, 185 delighted, 169 depend, 169

discourage, 14 disgust, 164, 165 dispatch, 26 do, 189, 190, 191 dollar, 60 down, 151, 152 fall, 109 fallen, 124 for, 142, 144, 145 from, 132, 137 garb, 38 get, 116, 208 give, 109, 111, 114 given, 124 go, 103, 110, 113, 119, 204 gone, 124 got, 124 have, 191, 192 her, 53 herself, 53 himself, 53 imp, 37 impatient, 165 in, 133 independent, 165 intermarriage, 36 invest, 168 is, 193, 194 lady-mantle, 73 laid, 87 lain, 87 laird, 81 lamb, 90 lament, 94 lamp, 82 land, 82 lapse, 83 larboard, 74 large, 82

largely, 37 last, 95 latchet, 87 late, 82 lately, 82 lay, 91, 95, 97 lazuli, 73 lazulite, 81 lean, 98 leap, 93 leap-year, 73 learn, 35, 96 leasing, 88 least, 38, 92 leave, 90 leet, 74 legioin, 90 lesser, 53 lest, 92 let, 96 leveling, 37 leviathan, 87 liable, 83 lien, 88 light, 95, 96 ligure, 87 like, 88, 91 likewise, 92 live, 91 lo, 91 long, 93 longsuffering, 95 loose, 93, 96, 97 lose, 98 lovely, 94 loving-kindness, 90 lust, 91 mad, 166 make, 103, 104, 110, 116

may, 184 me, 53 mechanics, 37 melter, 36 must, 186, 187 obey, 54 of, 129, 130, 131, 137 off, 151 on, 136, 138, 151, 152, 153 outstare, 38 over, 142, 149, 150, 153, 154 pelting, 22 prefer, 162 quaint, 70 rote, 70 run, 109, 117, 118 set, 112, 113, 114, 115 shall, 175, 176, 177, 180 should, 54, 177, 179, 180, 212 sick, 169 tackle, 70 take, 45, 104, 110, 111, 207 through, 142 to, 137, 143, 149 took, 124 was, 194 went, 123 were, 194 wert, 194, 195, 209 will, 177, 178 with, 145 would, 181, 182, 183