Johnson's and Webster'sVerbal Examples

Kusujiro Miyoshi

Max Niemeyer Verlag

LEXICOGRAPHICA

Series Maior

Supplementary Volumes to the International Annual for LexicographySuppl!ments " la Revue Internationale de LexicographieSupplementb&nde zum Internationalen Jahrbuch f)r Lexikographie

Edited byPierre 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’sVerbal Examples

With Special Referenceto Exemplifying Usage in Dictionary Entries

Max Niemeyer VerlagT)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, T�bingen 2007Ein Imprint der Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KGhttp://www.niemeyer.deDas Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich gesch�tzt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb derengen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzul=ssig und strafbar. Dasgilt insbesondere f�r Vervielf=ltigungen, >bersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung undVerarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany.Gedruckt auf alterungsbest=ndigem Papier.Druck: Laupp & Gçbel GmbH, NehrenEinband: N=dele Verlags- und Industriebuchbinderei, Nehren

Acknowledgements

In publishing my Ph.D. thesis, I want to express my deepest gratitude and most sincererespect to Professor Dr. Reinhard Hartmann, the late Professor Emeritus Haruo Kozu andDr. Daisaku Ikeda.

First and foremost, I appreciate how fortunate I was to do research in lexicography underthe supervision of Professor Hartmann, who is Honorary University Fellow at University ofExeter and Honorary Professor at University of Birmingham. This thesis could not havebeen completed without his continuous encouragement, valuable advice and patiencethroughout the years of my graduate studies at University of Exeter. I remember his firstguidance which began with the maxim “Problems are there to be solved”. Actually, I facedone challenge after another as I proceeded with my research, and on such occasions,Professor Hartmann consistently helped me overcome the challenges with his academicinsight which often amazed me. In particular, I am especially appreciative of hisencouraging advice which was given to me during our discussion on a snowy evening in2004. It was when I became worried, wondering if I could finalize my thesis, and with thisadvice I regained my energy to carry on my research. The kindness he showed me at thattime will remain in my memory for a long time, with the poetic atmosphere of the placewhere 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 ForeignStudies, first introduced me to research in English and American lexicography; my interestin Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster was nurtured under his inspirational guidance in theearly 1980’s. His words of academic advice and encouragement, most of which I stillremember, had been invaluable for me to continue my research until I became ProfessorHartmann’s supervisee in 2000. (How I wish Professor Kozu were still with us, and I couldpresent him with this book!)

Dr. Ikeda is the founder of Soka University and Soka Women's College. The experienceof being a Ph.D. student at University of Exeter, working full-time in Tokyo, was a “oncein a lifetime adventure” to me; I was then Associate Professor at Soka Women’s College. Ifeel very happy to have successfully accomplished it. However, I could not have said thesewords without Dr. Ikeda’s continuous moral support. In addition, he has been conferredwith honorary doctorates and the title of Professor Emeritus by a total of more than twohundred universities around the world, including Moscow State University, University ofGlasgow and University of Denver. In this situation, he heartily congratulated me for thecompletion 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 appreciationto many other people whose contributions range from technical advice to general supportand encouragement. Dr. Bob Lawson-Peebles at University of Exeter and Dr. Terry Hoad atOxford University perused my thesis as its examiners, giving me critical, yet valuable andconstructive advice. Many of my friends, including those I made the acquaintance of inExeter, assisted me during the years when I worked on the project. (I also want to thank mymother, father, wife and two sons for the same reason.) And the publication of this book hascome to be realized with the cooperation of Ms. Margarete Trinks and Ms. Birgitta Zeller atMax Niemeyer Verlag. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to each of these persons.

Table of Contents

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................XIAbbreviations and Special Conventions Used in the Thesis............................................. XIII

1: Introduction...................................................................................................................... 11.1 The Background to the Project................................................................................. 11.2 Purposes of the Research ......................................................................................... 21.3 The Linguistic Foundation of the Thesis.................................................................. 61.4 Johnson’s View of Language and the English Language......................................... 6

1.4.1 Overview of Problems in the Analyses to Date ............................................ 61.4.2 Formulation of Johnson’s View of Language............................................... 71.4.3 Problems in Investigating Johnson’s Verbal Examples to Date.................. 101.4.4 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 15

1.5 Webster’s View of Language and the English Language ...................................... 151.5.1 His Strong Language Awareness ................................................................ 151.5.2 The Formulation of Webster’s View of Language ..................................... 161.5.3 Fundamentals of Webster’s View of Language

as Revealed in His Dictionary .................................................................... 201.5.4 Webster’s Study of Etymology................................................................... 221.5.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 27

2: Methodology.................................................................................................................. 292.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 292.2 Selecting an Appropriate Edition of Johnson’s Dictionary.................................... 292.3 Adopting a Sampling Method ................................................................................ 312.4 Adopting a Statistical Method in the Analysis of Selected Entries ........................ 322.5 Selecting Books on Grammar to Be Based on in the Analysis

of Their Verbal Examples ...................................................................................... 342.6 Distinguishing Citations and Invented Examples .................................................. 352.7 Finding a Solution to the Problem of Authorship of Some Works ........................ 382.8 Selecting an Appropriate Version of the English Bible ......................................... 40

3: The Historical Background of Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries........................... 423.1 Johnson’s Dictionary and Two Continental Dictionaries ...................................... 42

3.1.1 Johnson’s Recognition of the Two Dictionaries ......................................... 423.1.2 Methods for Comparing the Dictionaries.................................................... 443.1.3 Ways of Dividing Entries ........................................................................... 443.1.4 Ways of Supplying Verbal Examples ......................................................... 463.1.5 Information on Verbal Inflections in the Dictionaries ................................ 473.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 48

3.2 Johnson’s Dictionary and Priestley’s Grammars ................................................... 493.2.1 Three Perspectives on Johnson’s Treatment of English Grammar ............. 493.2.2 Johnson and Two Leading Grammarians in the Eighteenth Century.......... 50

VIII

3.2.3 A Change in Priestley’s Opinion about Johnson’s Dictionary ................... 513.2.4 The Influence of Johnson’s Dictionary on Priestley................................... 523.2.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 55

3.3 Webster’s Dictionary and American Education..................................................... 553.3.1 The Prevailing Attitudes to the Historical Background

of Webster’s Dictionary.............................................................................. 553.3.2 The Historical Facts against the Prevailing Perspective ............................. 563.3.3 American Aspects of Webster’s Dictionary ............................................... 573.3.4 Dictionaries in Demand among Americans during the Nineteenth Century

.................................................................................................................... 613.3.5 The American Educational Situation in Its Early Period ............................ 623.3.6 The Continuity of the American Lexicographic Tradition.......................... 643.3.7 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 65

4: Johnson's and Webster's Usual Practices in Supplying Verbal Examples ..................... 674.1 Johnson’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations ................................................ 67

4.1.1 An Apparent Contradiction between Johnson’s Principles and Practice .... 674.1.2 Johnson’s Statements on His Selection of Entry-words ............................. 714.1.3 A Solution to the Apparent Contradiction .................................................. 72

4.2 Johnson’s Citations as Substitutes for Definitions ................................................. 734.2.1 Some Typical Examples ............................................................................. 734.2.2 Johnson's Motivation behind Substituting Citations for Definitions .......... 74

4.3 Webster’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations................................................ 764.3.1 A Problem of Widely Accepted Opinions .................................................. 764.3.2 Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations............................................... 764.3.3 Citations from American Authors............................................................... 80

4.4 Webster’s Invented Verbal Examples .................................................................... 814.5 Biblical Citations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries .................................. 83

4.5.1 A Problem with the Perspectives to Date.................................................... 834.5.2 An Overview of Webster’s Practice of Supplying Biblical Citations ......... 844.5.3 Webster’s Exclusion of Johnson’s Biblical Citations ................................. 854.5.4 Webster’s Addition of Biblical Citations.................................................... 894.5.5 Webster’s Biblical Citations Substituted for Johnson’s.............................. 914.5.6 Webster’s Biblical Citations Borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary........... 944.5.7 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 99

5: Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency andthe Inflected Forms of Such Verbs............................................................................... 1015.1 Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency ................................... 101

5.1.1 An Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatmentof Verbs of High Frequency ..................................................................... 101

5.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sourcesof Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency................................ 104

5.1.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Biblical Citationsin Entries on Verbs of High Frequency .................................................... 107

IX

5.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Citations from SourcesOther than the Bible in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency ................... 114

5.1.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 1195.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on the Inflected Forms

of Verbs of High Frequency................................................................................. 1205.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment

of the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency ................................. 1205.2.2 Examples for Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment

of the Inflected Forms of Verbs ................................................................ 1225.2.3 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 126

6: Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions and Prepositional Adverbs..................... 1276.1 Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions ........................................................ 127

6.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Prepositions ........... 1276.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations

in Entries on Prepositions ......................................................................... 1336.1.3 Johnson’s Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions ................... 1366.1.4 Webster’s Biblical Citations in Entries on Prepositions ........................... 1416.1.5 Other Characteristics of Webster’s Use of Verbal Examples

in Entries on Prepositions in His Dictionary ............................................ 1436.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 146

6.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ........................................ 1476.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment

of Prepositional Adverbs .......................................................................... 1476.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations

in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ......................................................... 1476.2.3 Johnson’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ............ 1486.2.4 Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ............ 1516.2.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 156

7: Verbal Examples for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations........ 1577.1 The Purpose of This Chapter................................................................................ 1577.2 Survey of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Collocations..................... 1587.3 Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Agreement ....... 1607.4 Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Disagreement... 1637.5 Webster’s Interest in Indicating the Collocations ................................................ 1687.6 Generalization of the Analysis ............................................................................. 170

8: Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatmentof Modal Auxiliaries and Primary Verbs ..................................................................... 1718.1 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries.................... 171

8.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries .. 1718.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries

on the Modal Auxiliaries Shall and Will ................................................... 1748.1.3 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-entrieson the Modal Auxiliaries May, Can, Might and Could............................. 183

8.1.5 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entrieson the Modal Auxiliary Must .................................................................... 186

8.1.6 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 1878.2 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Primary Verbs.......................... 188

8.2.1 The Characteristics of Primary Verbsand the Procedure of the Analysis ............................................................ 188

8.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examplesin Entries on Primary Verbs...................................................................... 189

8.2.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entrieson the Inflected Forms of Primary Verbs.................................................. 192

8.2.4 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 195

9: Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 1979.1 Outline ................................................................................................................. 1979.2 Reflections on the Process of the Analyses.......................................................... 197

9.2.1 Discoveries in the Preliminary Survey...................................................... 1979.2.2 Reflections on the Main Types of Analysis .............................................. 1999.2.3 Facts and Questions about Johnson’s Practice

in Supplying Verbal Examples ................................................................. 1999.2.4 Facts and Questions about Webster’s Practice

in Supplying Verbal Examples ................................................................. 2019.2.5 Ways of Answering the Questions............................................................ 2039.2.6 Summarizing Johnson’s and Webster’s Practice

in Supplying Verbal Examples ................................................................. 2049.3 Specific Facts Concerning Webster’s Unique Lexicographic Practices............... 206

9.3.1 Historical Background to Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ............. 2069.3.2 Webster’s Modifications to the Structure of Entries

in Johnson’s Dictionary ............................................................................ 2069.3.3 Difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s Views on Usage ............... 2089.3.4 The Modernity of Webster’s View of Usage ............................................ 2099.3.5 Webster’s Development of Johnson’s Treatment

of Words and Phrases ............................................................................... 2109.3.6 Webster’s Use of Johnson’s Citations ...................................................... 2119.3.7 Webster’s Invented Examples................................................................... 212

9.4 Final Remarks and New Horizons of Research.................................................... 213

Bibliography...................................................................................................................... 214I Cited Dictionaries and Other Sources...................................................................... 214II Cited Books and Papers........................................................................................... 215

Indices ............................................................................................................................... 220Index of Personsonal Names........................................................................................ 220Index of Words ............................................................................................................ 222

List of Tables

Table 1: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter Lin Johnson’s Dictionary .................................................................................................. 67

Table 2: Sources of Citations Substituted for Definitionsin Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary ....................................... 74

Table 3: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter Lin Webster’s Dictionary .................................................................................................. 77

Table 4: Biblical Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter Lin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries........................................................................ 85

Table 5: Biblical Citations from the Original Sourcein Entries on Words for the Letter L in Webster's Dictionary ....................................... 89

Table 6: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequencyin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 101

Table 7: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequencyin Johnson’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 104

Table 8: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequencyin Webster’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 106

Table 9: Biblical Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequencyin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 107

Table 10: Biblical Citations in Sub-entries on Verbs of High Frequencyin Johnson’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 108

Table 11: Entries on the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequencyin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 120

Table 12: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositionsin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 127

Table 13: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary.......... 133Table 14: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary ......... 135Table 15: Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary ...... 136Table 16: Invented Examples in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary ........... 146Table 17: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs

in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 147Table 18: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs

in Johnson’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 148Table 19: Verbal Examples Supplied for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition

Collocations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ................................................. 158Table 20: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition

and Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s Dictionary ........................................ 159Table 21: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition

and Verb-preposition Collocations in Webster’s Dictionary ........................................ 160Table 22: Johnson’s and Webster’s View of Modal Auxiliaries ....................................... 172Table 23: Citations and Invented Examples in Sub-entries

on Modal Auxiliaries in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries .................................. 173Table 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 ........................ 200Table 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 BibleCOBUILD Collins Cobuild English Language DictionaryCOD The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current EnglishOALD Oxford Advanced Learner’s DictionaryOED The Oxford English Dictionaryv.i. intransitive verbv.t. transitive verb

2. Johnson’s Abbreviations

adj. adjectiveadv. adverbconj. conjunctioninterj. interjectionn.s. substantive nounpart. participleparticip. pass. passive participlepart. preter. preterite participleprep. prepositionpret. preteritepreter. preterite.pron. pronounv.a. active verbv. defective defective verbv.n. neuter verb

3. Webster’s Abbreviations

a. adjectiveadv. adverbArm. Armoriccon. conjunctionEng. EnglishFr. FrenchIt. Italiann. nounObs. Obsoletepart. perf. perfect participlepp. preterite participleppr. present participle

XIV

prep. prepositionpret. preteriteverb aux. auxiliary verbv.i. intransitive verbv.t. transitive verbn.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, Iadopted 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 theDictionary’.

K.M.When inserting my comments in passages where original authors used square brackets, Iput 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’sdictionaries. 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 NamesI have indicated the first names of authorities when they appear for the first time in eachsub-section. As to those of historic grammarians and linguists and those of persons whoare sources of Johnson's and Webster's citations, I indicated them when they appear forthe first time in the text.

Treatment of Clerical Errors in Johnson’s and Webster’s DictionariesIn quoting Johnson's and Webster's statements and verbal examples, I have copied theirclerical 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, Ibegan studying the history of American lexicography on the recommendation of mysupervisor then, namely the late Professor Emeritus Haruo Kozu at Kansai University ofForeign Studies in Osaka, Japan. This was my first opportunity to investigate Webster’sDictionary. I was engaged in the study for two years, and it produced a master’sdissertation entitled ‘A study of American English dictionaries with special reference toNoah Webster’ (Miyoshi 1982). In this dissertation, I especially surveyed the historicalbackground of Webster’s Dictionary. After that, I gradually became interested in Johnsonas a lexicographer whose Dictionary was generally regarded as an indispensable source forWebster in compiling his Dictionary. And I wrote several articles concerning Johnson’sDictionary, such as ‘Priestley no eibunten to Johnson no eigojiten’ (‘Priestley’s Rudimentsand Johnson’s Dictionary’) (1987), ‘Johnson no jiten: yourei no gogakushiteki igi’(‘Johnson’s Dictionary: The linguistic significance of its citations’) (1989), ‘S. Johnson totairiku no gengo academy: hin’yodoshi no koumoku wo chushin ni’ (‘The influence ofcontinental 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 mymaster’s dissertation, I wrote an article dealing with his biblical citations, ‘A linguisticapproach to Webster’s quotations from the Bible’ (1990). As its title shows, I discussedWebster’s use of biblical citations in relation to his view of the language used in it. By thetime I wrote this article, I had already become dubious of two prevailing perspectives aboutWebster. One is that Webster underestimated the value of verbal examples, and the other isthat his Dictionary is essentially encyclopaedic and provides little information on thelanguage. Besides, it seemed quite strange that the books and articles comparing Johnson’sand Webster’s dictionaries that I had read had hardly referred to the first edition ofJohnson’s Dictionary, making it difficult to clarify the similarities and differences betweenJohnson’s and Webster’s original view of the language as well as their original practices insupplying verbal examples. Furthermore, it also seemed strange that the bibliographies inthose works rarely listed James Sledd and Gwin Kolb’s Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary: Essaysin the Biography of a Book (1955), De Witt Starnes and Gertrude Noyes’s The EnglishDictionary 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 shouldbe collated with the first edition of Johnson’s Dictionary so that their respective views ofthe language and practices in supplying verbal examples might be clarified.

However, I had not been able to begin a comparative analysis of Johnson’s andWebster’s dictionaries from this standpoint until 2000. This is because I was lacking in theknowledge of the methodology appropriate for this type of analysis; I was aware of the factthat 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 biblicalcitations according to the types of entries, nor referred to their relations with Johnson’scounterparts; I was only able to discuss citations supplied in entries on words for the letterL in Webster’s Dictionary there, although this means that I thought it might be appropriateto investigate the whole stretch of the L’s if I was to grasp the general compilation processin the Dictionary.

Actually, the methods required for such a project had hardly been formulated before Idived into the ‘sea of verbal examples’ in the respective first editions of Johnson’s andWebster’s dictionaries, except for the assumption that there would be significantdifferences in the way the two lexicographers supplied verbal examples according to thetypes of entries and sub-entries, if there was a significant relationship between their verbalexamples, their view of the language and the usage of words. Based on this assumption, Ibegan to check Johnson’s verbal examples that he supplied in his treatment of words for theletter 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 taskat the University of Exeter in May 2000, under the supervision of Professor Dr. ReinhardHartmann. After I finished checking Johnson’s relevant verbal examples, I began the sametype of analysis of Webster’s verbal examples. While engaged on such tasks, I alsoexamined the analyses of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries that had been made byvarious authorities as extensively as possible. It took me approximate half a year tocomplete 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 thelanguage facts I had collected would ensure the success of the project. Secondly, it becameevident that both Johnson and Webster had usually supplied verbal examples on the basis oftheir view of the language and the usage of words, respectively. Thirdly, the survey seemedto have revealed that a number of prevailing attitudes typical of some of the analyses ofJohnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries are based on misconceptions, clarifying alternativefacts instead. This strongly suggested to me the significance of my project in the historicalstudy 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 designativemeaning. Short, invented phrases are frequently essential to tell the reader how the definition isactually 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 beganand developed in the history of English lexicography, especially in America. If the often-quoted saying “only by knowing the history of an issue can we see the way to the future wewant” 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 inhis American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) in relation to his view of thelanguage and the historical background in which the Dictionary was compiled. To achievethis purpose, I will compare the verbal examples with those in Samuel Johnson’sDictionary of the English Language (1755). I expect that the analysis to be made in thisway will contribute to clarifying the use of verbal examples in the early history ofAmerican lexicography.

A comparative analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries is nothing new in thehistorical study of English lexicography. This substantially began in 1962 with JosephReed’s article, ‘Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson’. Because of the fact that Webstercompiled his Dictionary with reference to Johnson’s, as is generally acknowledged, thecomparative analysis has always been useful in revealing various aspects of Webster as alexicographer. However, in the history of more than forty years of the analysis, it seemsthat Webster’s practice in supplying verbal examples has hardly been dealt with from alinguistic viewpoint. Two reasons are conceivable for this. One is that his use of verbalexamples has been obscured by another characteristic feature, the provision ofencyclopaedic information. Actually, it has often been believed that Webster as alexicographer was unique in this respect. However, Webster was originally a grammarianwho was deeply interested in the language, and his grammars were widely read throughoutAmerica at his time. Besides, he provided entries on words which have a wide range ofsenses and functions, such as verbs of high frequency, function words, auxiliary verbs andso on in his Dictionary. These facts indicate the probability that the Dictionary isessentially a dictionary of the language, however abundant it may be in encyclopaedicinformation.

The other reason for the fact that Webster's verbal examples have not received sufficientattention is that in his Dictionary Webster supplied citations far less frequently thanJohnson. Mainly because of this, there is a prevailing belief that Webster did not recognizethe value of citations in the dictionary. Actually, however, there is little evidence which candeny the probability that Webster supplied only a small number of citations as a result ofhis careful selection of phrases and sentences to be quoted. Furthermore, when browsingthrough Webster’s Dictionary, we can see that he supplied an abundance of inventedexamples in it, indicating that he was fully aware of the importance of verbal examples. Inthis situation, there are few reasons for claiming that Webster underestimated the value ofcitations. Webster himself may have often criticized an excessive number of citations in thedictionary. However, as far as I can judge, he acknowledged the need for citations after hebegan compiling his Dictionary in 1807.

In addition to the primary purpose I mentioned above, I will also aim to clarify twopoints as secondary purposes: the relation between Johnson’s verbal examples and his viewof the language and the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s use of verbalexamples in relation to their respective historical backgrounds. The use of Johnson’sDictionary 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 alsoattach importance to this point, which does not seem to have been analysed sufficiently todate. With regard to the analysis of the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s use ofverbal examples in relation to their historical context, it may safely be said that anylexicographer is subject to historical constraints and that he/she often makes a deliberateeffort to compile a dictionary which meets the needs of the time. And the doctrine ofcorrectness 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 firstedition of Johnson’s Dictionary in my analysis, it is expected that the comparison ofJohnson’s and Webster’s linguistic use of verbal examples will reveal part of the differencebetween the doctrine of correctness in English usage in mid-eighteenth-century Britain andthat in nineteenth-century America, thus clarifying the language facts which are necessaryto 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 anddescriptive.

(1) Linguistic and EncyclopaedicMy 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 andconsulted by the user of a dictionary, based on language”, including such information typesas etymology, spelling, pronunciation and grammar. That is, I have generally used the wordwhen referring to diachronic, orthographic, phonological, grammatical, semantic andpragmatic information in Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, but I have not always usedit in discussing usage labels in Johnson’s Dictionary. This is for the reason that Johnsonseems to have occasionally supplied usage labels based on his literary taste, which arethought 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 factualknowledge as defined in Hartmann and James (1998:49): “In contrast with linguisticinformation, encyclopedic material is more concerned with the description of objectiverealities 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 ofhistorical or utilitarian facts and figures”, and encyclopaedic information, the explanation of“the object or abstraction for which a word stands”.

(2) Grammar and UsageIn 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 whichmay or may not reflect the native speaker’s intuition”. And, concerning usage, the sameauthorities (1998:149) have stated that it is “A collective term for various judgements onaspects of language”. With reference to these statements, I will generally use the termgrammar when referring to the system of the language and usage for specific aspects suchas words and phrases.

5

(3) LiteraryThe senses of the term literary vary according to the interpretation of its relevant termliterature. 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 groupor 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 inworks of literature” and “Having the style of literature, often to the point of affectation orstiltedness”.

(4) Prescriptive and DescriptiveIt will be widely acknowledged among lexicographers that ‘prescriptive lexicography’means, as Hartmann and James (1998:111) have stated, “An approach to dictionary-makingwhich is based on normative attitudes as to how a language or language variety should beused rather than the facts observed about its usage”, and that the ‘descriptive dictionary’, asthe same authorities (1998:37) have stated, implies “An approach to dictionary-makingwhich is based on the observed facts about a language or language variety rather thanattitudes on how it should be used”. Part of my concepts of prescriptive and descriptive iscovered by these explanations. At the same time, however, I will often use the terms, takinginto account the ‘reason’ and the ‘facts of usage’ which Sterling Leonard has discussed inrelation 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 generallyadhered to; in the eighteenth century the two are clearly differentiated. The one assumes the powerof 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 endeavorto “correct, improve, and fix” usage. The other, while admitting the usefulness of purism inrecommending what may be regarded as improvements, recognizes language – even cultivatedlanguage – as a vastly complicated and often haphazard growth of habits stubbornly rooted, theproduct of great variation in social soil and climate, not more readily changed by fiat into clippedand 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 themaccording 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 theyare judged to have been based on ‘reason’, and as descriptive when it is thought that theyattached importance to the ‘facts of usage’. This means that however strictly they may haveindicated the usage of words, the two lexicographers will often be regarded as descriptivewhen they can be judged to have based themselves on the ‘facts of usage’ of the words; Iwill do this in cases where I discuss their views of grammar and usage in relation to theconcepts 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’sand Webster’s view of language and the English language to date, providing an overview ofthe perspectives of Johnson’s verbal examples among authorities; as to Webster’s verbalexamples, they seem to have hardly been analysed until today. The reason for making suchobservations is that the primary and secondary purposes of the thesis, which I discussed inSection 1.2, will be achieved only through the procedure of comparative analysis of thelinguistic significance of their verbal examples, which I will undertake in the main body ofthe thesis, Chapters 4 to 8. This being the case, it becomes unavoidable to clarify their basicviews of language and the English language in the first place. My intention is to accomplishthe 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 thenecessity 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 ofJohnson’s and Webster’s views of language among various authorities seem to havederived from their perspectives of the historical background of the two dictionaries. As toWebster’s Dictionary, especially, the general approach to ascribing its compilation to hispatriotism 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 leftneglected. However, I will discuss it in Section 3.3, as part of the chapter entitled “TheHistorical 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 hisDictionary. It was gradually formulated as he went on with the task. This means that whenhe finalised his Dictionary, he did not necessarily think of language as he had done before.This fact has occasionally caused misunderstandings among authorities, often affectingtheir assessments of the history of English lexicography. Specifically, because they have aless than complete understanding of the similarity and difference between the contents ofthe “Preface” to Johnson’s Dictionary and that of the Plan of a Dictionary (1747), whichJohnson wrote before compiling the Dictionary, authorities have occasionally failed toappreciate his changing view of language. For the purpose of eliminating such errors fromthe thesis, I need to clarify how Johnson’s view of language developed, since without theappropriate understanding of Johnson’s view of language, the linguistic significance of hisverbal examples will not be analysed successfully.

Besides, I need to discuss problems involving the study of Johnson’s verbal examples inhis Dictionary to date. Specifically, the verbal examples have mainly been studied from aliterary viewpoint until today. Actually, however, Johnson’s primary concern wasconsistently with English grammar throughout the task of compiling the Dictionary. Inspite 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 willcontribute 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 ofour English idiom”. That is, when he began compiling his Dictionary, he was confident thatit would guarantee a beneficial effect on the purification of the language. When he finalisedthe 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 justicemay the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that haspreserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalmhis language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunarynature, 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 wasgradually weakened while he was engaged in the compilation of the Dictionary.

Observing this situation, many authorities have considered that Johnson came to havethe view that it was a vain attempt to stop the change in the language when he finalised hisDictionary. Some have considered that Johnson recognized the limitation of whatlexicographers can do. Morton Benson (1986:4) has said that “Johnson [...] realized clearlythat all living languages change and that, therefore, dictionaries should never be consideredto 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 hasalso 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 hasregarded 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 [...] andpride. 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 seemto have passed over a critically important passage in the “Preface”. Johnson never came tothink it futile to attempt to resist changes in the language. Torn between his zeal forpurifying and fixing the language and the recognition of its impossibility, Johnson statedthe following:

If the changes that we fear be thus irresistible, what remains but to acquiesce with silence, as in theother 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 beultimately defeated: tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration; we havelong 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 linguisticsignificance of his Dictionary would be difficult to assess.

Through the task of compiling the Dictionary, Johnson also formulated a uniqueconception 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 thingswhich they denote. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [2nd (par. 17) in the “Preface”])

Here, he discriminated between ideas and words, the constituents of language, wishing thatboth would retain their purity as long as possible. As to the ‘words’ referred to in thispassage, 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 tobe 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 spokenbefore they were written; and while they were unfixed by any visible signs, must have been spokenwith great diversity, as we now observe those who cannot read to catch sounds imperfectly, andutter them negligently. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [1st (par. 7) in the “Preface”])

In this statement, referring to words, Johnson discriminated between spoken language andwritten language. And the statement also indicates that he attached importance to writtenlanguage; he seems to have had the recognition that its ideal style would slow theprogression 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 thethesis.)

It is now clear that Johnson’s view of language is inextricably related to his recognitionof change in language; in the respective passages above, which concern Johnson’s view oflanguage, he referred to changes in language. What, then, did he think the causes ofchanges were? In other words, against what did Johnson consistently try to fight whilecompiling his Dictionary with the provision of an abundance of verbal examples? In orderto seek an answer to this question, I will compare Johnson’s statements in the “Preface” tohis Dictionary with the statements of a lexicographer who published the GazophylaciumAnglicanum (1689) anonymously. Tetsuro Hayashi (1978:97-98) has claimed that “most ofthe outstanding lexicographers before Johnson seem to have been fully conscious of whatthey regard as the excellence of the English language, and they were proud of its superiorityto any one of the modern languages in Europe”. This opinion is basically correct, but theauthor 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 crudeimitation of Stephen Skinner’s Etymologicon Linguae Anglicanae (1671), an etymological

9

dictionary written in Latin. Martyn Wakelin (1987:161), for instance, has claimed that “Theauthor of the Gazophylacium [...] is predominantly interested in etymologies; which arefrequently plundered from Skinner”. However, the author of the Gazophylacium was awareof 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 hundredand fifty Years only behind me, I could scarce imagine it ever to have been the Language of myAncestors, 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 thelanguage; they that have frequent intercourse with strangers, to whom they endeavour toaccommodate themselves, must in time learn a mingled dialect [...]. This will not always beconfined to the exchange, the warehouse, or the port, but will be communicated by degrees toother 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 thelanguage. He said (1689: n. pag. [3rd (par. 5) in the “Preface”]), “Much more may youimagine 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 suddentransformations 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 compiledan etymological dictionary, whatever historic events the two lexicographers may haveassumed, citing the terms conquests and migrations, respectively; as to “Transmigrations ofGovernments”, the author of the Gazophylacium may have thought of the GloriousRevolution, an event which happened at his time, although it seems that a serious change inthe language was not caused by the event, as far as I can judge. Instead of citing conquestsand other reasons, Johnson referred to other probable causes of linguistic change, such asthe development of civilization (1755: n. pag. [8th (par. 81) in the “Preface”]), that ofscience (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 wasthe negative impact of translation. It can be said that this was natural for Johnson whoattached importance to written language. He stated the following:

The great pest of speech is frequency of translation. No book was ever turned from one languageinto another, without imparting something of its native idiom; this is the most mischievous andcomprehensive innovation; single words may enter by thousands, and the fabrick of the tonguecontinue the same, but new phraseology changes much at once; it alters not the single stones of thebuilding, 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 thelanguage. Furthermore, Johnson emphatically stated that:

If an academy should be established for the cultivation of our stile, [...] let them, instead ofcompiling grammars and dictionaries, endeavour, with all their influence, to stop the licence oftranslatours [...]. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [10th (par. 90) in the “Preface”])

The ‘academy’ Johnson referred to here would be a nationally authorized institute for thepurification of the language; I will discuss it in detail in Section 3.1. And this passageillustrates the fact that Johnson was seriously concerned about the adverse effect oftranslation. It will be natural to consider that this recognition of Johnson’s influenced hisselection of the sources of his citations; one typical example for this is that he rarelysupplied citations from the English Bible for indicating the usage of the language, whichwill 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 citationswhich 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 theEnglish-speaking people in the eighteenth century. Certainly, Johnson’s citations provide aconsiderable quantity of encyclopaedic information. For instance, in the entry on animal,Johnson supplied 54 lines of citations from a book of natural history, which detailedbiological classification. William Wimsatt (1959:83), who investigated Johnson’s citationsfrom various angles, claimed that “Johnson’s Dictionary is an eighteenth-century tabloidspeculum – a Speculum Historiale, Naturale, and Doctrinale”. Edward McAdam andGeorge 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 logicalnomenclature, and he had to use second-rate authorities. [...] He used what books were availablefor agriculture and building. Electricity excited him: he refers to the Transactions of the RoyalSociety, and is aware of what Franklin is experimenting on in the colonies. (McAdam and Milne1963:ix)

Besides, Johnson was a pious Christian and a moralist. This fact can be gathered from hisRambler (1750-52) and the “Prayers and Meditations” in the Johnsonian Miscellanies(1897) edited by George Hill. Maurice Quinlan often used Johnson’s citations in theDictionary when analysing Johnson’s religious thought in the book Samuel Johnson: ALayman’s Religion (1964).

Robert DeMaria is probably the authority who has investigated Johnson’s citations mostextensively. In his Johnson’s ‘Dictionary’ and the Language of Learning (1986), DeMariadiscussed Johnson as a moralist, educator and man of encyclopaedic knowledge exclusivelybased on citations in the Dictionary. He claimed that:

11

Johnson’s Dictionary is generically related not only to dictionaries but also to a host ofencyclopedic histories, poems, commentaries, educational works, commonplace books, and, ofcourse, 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 Websterincluded abundant religious and encyclopaedic information and that Johnson did notpractice 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 andQuinlan’s, are more than enough to refute such assertions.

However, have DeMaria and other authorities I cited above captured the essential aspectof Johnson’s citations? As seen in the previous sub-section, Johnson’s view of languagechanged while he was engaged in the compilation process. However, he was alwaysconscious of regulating the language by means of grammar. Actually, this had consistentlybeen a chief concern for Johnson throughout the entire compilation process of hisDictionary. In his Plan, Johnson (1747:30) stated that “I [...] shall therefore endeavour tosupport 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 grammaticallyconsidered: they are referred to the different parts of speech; traced, when they are irregularlyinflected, through their various terminations; and illustrated by observations, not indeed of great orstriking importance, separately considered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, andhitherto neglected or forgotten by English grammarians. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 42) inthe “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 andverbs (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)]), phrasalverbs (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 40)]), expletives (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 44)]), verbs of highfrequency (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45)]), and particles (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 46)]). Andthe 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 verbalexamples in his Dictionary strongly suggest the probability that he essentially suppliedcitations to illustrate grammatical rules of the language.

DeMaria has been partly aware of this. Though referring little to the relation betweengrammar and usage, and Johnson’s verbal examples, he stated, in passing, the following inhis discussion of the relation between Johnson’s religious thought and some of the verbalexamples:

The central purpose of the Dictionary is philological, and the majority of Johnson’sbibliographical decisions were, broadly speaking, linguistic; acknowledged masters of English areheavily 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, itis 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 ofliterature” in the eighteenth century. For this reason, quite a few authorities have claimedthat 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 dictionarybecame a department of literature; this perspective is also based on the investigation of theverbal examples. Since the verbal examples were supplied by the “Great Cham ofliterature”, it is quite natural for the authorities to assume their literary colour. As to howthey 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, fromBen 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 andcritical judgement – from Sidney’s Defense, from Ben Jonson’s Timber (a work otherwise largelyneglected during the eighteenth century), from Dryden, from Swift, from Addison – the shapers ofthe 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 theliterary colour of the verbal examples. Johnson did not always supply literarily significantcitations in his Dictionary.

As I mentioned earlier in this sub-section, Watt and Murray recognised Johnson’sDictionary as essentially a literary work. It can be said that this interpretation has resultedfrom the conception that Johnson always supplied ‘good’ citations from the works ofnotable authors. In this regard, Martyn Wakelin (1987:174) has stressed that “With Johnsonwe 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 theimmediate use and the characteristics of elegance. It is certain that all these considerations wereinstrumental in forming the essence of the most authoritative and prescriptive dictionary of theEnglish language. (Hayashi 1978:104)

Plainly, such claims go against the facts. Hayashi’s recognition, especially, is based onJohnson’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 formulationof his view of language. Allen Read (1986b:38) has collected the voices of the readers ofJohnson’s Dictionary for a period of approximately fifty years after its publication. Theytend to express views such as “Johnson has not used sufficient discrimination in selectinghis authorities” and “Johnson often quotes as authorities Arbuthnot and Thomson, whowere never considered, even by their own countrymen, as standards of purity.” JamesSledd and Gwin Kolb (1955:135) have also claimed that “Johnson included too manyquotations, often from writers of no authority”. The conception of ‘good’ authors maydiffer widely in individuals. However, Johnson himself admitted that he occasionallyincluded 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 fromauthors “never mentioned as masters of elegance or models of stile” in his Dictionary. Onereason 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’sdescriptivism. Another reason was the following, which reveals his prescriptivism:

The words which our authours have introduced by their knowledge of foreign languages, orignorance 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 othersagainst 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 longtime. To be specific, Rackstraw Downes (1962:29-41) has tried to clarify Johnson’s idealstyle 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 WilliamShakespeare (1765) with his citations from the author in the Dictionary, has claimed thatthe Dictionary is “the most complete glossary and concordance to Shakespeare” in the1760’s.

In opposition to such a climate of literary investigation of Johnson’s verbal examples, afew 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 aplaywright 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 WilliamShakespeare, such as “Analogical”, “Bad”, “Barbarous”, “Burlesque” and “Inelegant”. Inthis 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 oftimes 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 linewith McAdam and Milne. As far as I know, one of the authorities who made the mostsignificant examination of critical labels which Johnson put to his citations is DonaldSiebert; 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 ventureinto the world of eighteenth-century colloquialism and slang, we shall find Johnson’sDictionary a helpful mecum”. However, can Allen’s analysis, as well as Siebert’s, be calledlinguistic? Hayashi (1978:102) has pointed out that Johnson’s critical labels are “primarilybased on the subjective evaluation of the qualities of words”, hinting at the probability thatthey derive from Johnson’s literary view. In this respect, I agree with Hayashi. More thananything else, the contents of labels Allen and Siebert have cited have little relevance togrammar, Johnson’s primary concern.

Daisuke Nagashima has taken a different stand. He (1983:208-210) focused on caseswhere 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 discouragethem 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 fromsufficient to draw a meaningful conclusion from. Besides, he investigated verbal examplesin the entries on the words behindhand, discourage, gust, moralize, peculiar, pernicious,quaint, refund, site, and square, whose relationships with one another are quite vague. Tomake matters worse, Nagashima did not explain at all of on what principle he selected suchentries. In this case, his investigation can hardly be regarded as systematic.

In this way, grammatical analyses of Johnson’s verbal examples have been made veryrarely to date. Some authorities have pointed out that Johnson’s Dictionary is essentially adictionary of the language and not of literature. In spite of this fact, they have hardly triedto 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 Johnsonwas compiling a dictionary of the English language [...]. His purpose was to explain English wordsto 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 thisstatement. Similarly, Hayashi (1978:95) has said that “As one of the prerequisites of agrammatical dictionary, Johnson evidently held the idea that a dictionary should giveimportance to commonness and generality of words and phrasal expressions”. Saying thus,Hayashi did not document a single citation in Johnson’s Dictionary. Noel Osselton isprobably one of very few authorities who have successfully examined one linguistic aspectof 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 inthe 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 hardlybeen analysed to date.

1.4.4 Generalization of the Analysis

Johnson’s view of language had not matured before he began compiling the Dictionary. Inthis sense, if we regard the Dictionary as reflecting all his statements in the Plan, we willnot be able to make a correct assessment of this. Torn between the zeal for fixing thelanguage and the recognition of it being impossible in compiling the Dictionary, Johnsongradually developed a unique attitude toward the language, which is revealed in hisstatement I cited in Section 1.4.2: “Life may be lengthened by care, though death cannot beultimately defeated: tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration: wehave long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggles for our language”. Thisattitude, resistance against linguistic change coupled with the recognition of it beingultimately 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 ofour English idiom” with the confidence of being able to stabilize the language once and forall. This change from “immaturity” to “maturity” will be critically important if we want tograsp the linguistic significance of Johnson’s verbal examples, the vital part of hisDictionary, correctly.

As to his verbal examples, the fact will also have to be emphasized that Johnson did notnecessarily supply them from a literary viewpoint. Rather, it can safely be said that theliterary aspect of the examples was of secondary importance for Johnson, when werecognise 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 thisintention. I will perform this task in every chapter in the main body of this thesis, which isnecessary to compare Johnson’s and Webster’s practice of supplying verbal examples in thelight 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 aspecthas 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 sciolistsand that dabbling spirit of innovation which is perpetually disturbing its settled usages and fillingit with anomalies; if, in short, our vernacular language can be redeemed from corruptions, and ourphilology 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 informationwas more important than that of encyclopaedic information. And Webster is thought tohave expected that the citizens of his country would prosper based on the standardization ofthe language. That is, there is a strong probability that the provision of encyclopaedicinformation 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 beappreciated adequately. In this section, I will refer to a reason for the changes and discusswhat the changes were like. Then, I will discuss the fundamentals of his view of languagewhich is revealed in his Dictionary. In addition, I will also investigate Webster’s study ofetymology here; this will be necessary to prove that Webster’s view of language and theEnglish language is highly scientific, though within his historical limitation, contrary to thepronouncements of quite a few authorities. As to the historical context of the study ofWebster’s verbal examples, I will not discuss it in this section. The reason for this is thatonly a small number of authorities have addressed the verbal examples directly in spite ofthe fact that they actually comprise a focal part of his Dictionary. I will discuss the variousapproaches 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 ofShakespeare and Addison, I am constrained to declare that the people of America, in particular theEnglish 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 byAllen Read:

The want of some standard in schools has occasioned a great variety of dialects in Great-Britainand of course, in America. Every county in England, every state in America and almost every townin each state, has some peculiarities in pronunciation which are equally erroneous and disagreeableto its neighbors. (Read 1986a:198)

These two statements have in common that they concern spoken language in America, butthey clearly conflict with each other. The former reveals Webster’s attitude of accepting thelanguage as it is, and the latter his zeal for standardizing it. Ronald Wells (1973:54), byrecognising Webster’s descriptivism and his awareness and love of the mutability of thelanguage, has claimed that “Webster’s theories anticipate in part the modern doctrine ofusage 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 oflanguage standard”. They are both, respectively, regarded as correct in referring toWebster’s view of the language. However, Webster’s prescriptivism has often been ignoredin 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 asan invigorating force” and Herbert Morton’s (1994:44) that “In contrast to Johnson, whothought 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”. Inthis regard, Charlton Laird appropriately stated the following, referring to Webster’sprescriptivism:

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 educationthroughout this continent.” (Laird 1972:272)

Thus, Landau’s perspective, as well as Morton’s, may be misleading. Their claims can beregarded as having resulted from a disregard for Webster’s ambivalent view of the languageprior to the publication of his Dictionary.

It may be worth mentioning, in passing, the reason why Webster wanted to effect suchuniformity of language and education around 1786, as revealed in the passage from Lairdabove. The document which Laird referred to is not available to me. However, Websterelucidated the point in his Dissertations on the English Language (1789), which waspublished three years after 1786. In a word, he seems to have wanted to perform this for thepurpose of stabilizing and developing the early republic. The following is an extract fromthe relevant part of the book:

Nothing but the establishment of schools and some uniformity in the use of books, can annihilatedifferences in speaking and preserve the purity of the American tongue. [...] Small causes, such asa nick-name, or a vulgar tone in speaking, have actually created a dissocial spirit between theinhabitants of the different states, which is often discoverable in private business and publicdeliberations. Our political harmony is therefore concerned in a uniformity of language. (Webster1789:19-20)

Webster’s internal conflict between his descriptivism and prescriptivism seems to havecaused him to go through several changes in his view of language. Before discussing thepoint, 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 agrammarian. 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 wascontinuously published in various states, Webster himself revising it several times. Ikegami(1971:71-72) has detailed which grammatical treatises Webster issued between 1784 and1831.

A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, Part II1784: 1st edition

18

1785: 2nd edition1785: 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th editions

The Rudiments of English Grammar1790

Dissertations on the English Language1798

A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language1807: 1st edition1822: 2nd edition

An Improved Grammar of the English Language1831

As Webster published his grammars one after another in this way, his linguistic viewgradually changed, and this change naturally affected his view of grammar. However, thisis an issue which has hardly been addressed to date. Makoto Ikeda (1999:67-88) is one ofthe very few authorities who have tried to elucidate Webster’s changing views of languageand English grammar. Referring to documents which are hardly available today, Ikedaseems to have succeeded in achieving his purpose.

Thus, according to Ikeda, Webster followed the tradition of Latin grammar in hisEnglish grammar published in 1784. This opinion sounds convincing when we read thefollowing passage in Ikeda’s book:

A Grammatical Institute, Part II [1st ed., 1784] follows Robert Lowth’s Short Introduction toEnglish Grammar (1762), as he acknowledged on some occasions; thus “in the organization andgeneral arrangement of the text we find on every hand the influence of the Latin grammars of thepast”. 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 withpropriety”, 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. Hecompared the second and third editions of Webster’s Grammatical Institute, Part II, quotingthe 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 referredto 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,” “tenfoot”; he approves of the objective form following “to be” (“Me is also used in the nominative, inpopular practice – it is me. This is condemned as bad English; but in reality is an original idiom ofthe language [...]”); he thinks the second person pronoun “you” can be used as singular (“Thecompilers 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’sview of grammar went through a further change, though slightly, after the third edition ofthe 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 fromthe Belgic dialect, it appears to be in the singular as well as the plural, and our universal popularusage, in applying it to a single person with a verb in the singular number, is correct. Yourself is inthe singular number.

Webster’s view of you revealed here seems to be basically the same as that in the thirdedition of his Grammatical Institute, Part II which Ikeda has shown. However, Webster nolonger dared to cite the example you was. It may be said that his view of grammar had beenmoderated further after 1785.

On the basis of the observations above, it is no longer surprising why authoritiesoccasionally disagree about Webster’s view of grammar. For instance, Thomas Pyles andIkegami have compared Webster’s view of grammar with Lindley Murray’s, expressingopinions 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 dowith the direction and regulation of the English language than any other individual figures. (Pyles1954:69)

Ikegami:[...] while Murray, who was nearly his contemporary and whose work became immensely popularin the early nineteenth century, was really more of an eighteenth century man, Webster can justlybe 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 whileIkegami saw him as basically a descriptive grammarian after that. It may safely be said thatboth 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, asdiscussed above; without appreciating these changes, his view of language as revealed inhis 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. Hebegan 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 willrefer to later in this sub-section. As discussed in Section 1.4.2, Johnson thought thatlanguage was oral at the outset. However, in addition to the words above, Webster alsostated:

Language is that which is uttered by the tongue, and if men do not write the language as it isspoken by the great body of respectable people, they do not write the real language. (Webster1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”])

Here, it is clear that Webster placed more importance on spoken language than writtenlanguage. In other words, he asserted that written language should be based on spokenlanguage. He (1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”]) confirmed this assertion by sayingthat “the universal colloquial practice” was “the real and only genuine language”. This is instark contrast with Johnson’s view. As already discussed in Section 1.4.2, Johnson stressedthe importance of written language, as well as the risk of excessive emphasis on spokenlanguage, saying that all words of necessary or common use were liable to degenerate ifthey were unfixed by any visible signs. It was because Webster was conscious of languageas a medium of communication that he attached importance to spoken form. Referring tothe ‘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 theforce of custom compels us to abandon. In this respect, the present study of grammar is worse thanuseless. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”])

In conjunction with this, any set of views will have to be criticised which attempts toconvey the impression that Webster was interested in archaic words and archaic use ofwords. Thus, Joseph Reed (1962:101) once claimed that many of the words Webster addedto Johnson’s Dictionary “were already obsolete or used only in archaic or poetic diction bythe beginning of the nineteenth century”. However, there is a problem with thisinterpretation. It is based on Reed’s comparison of Webster’s Dictionary with the 1799edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, the reason for which I will detail in Section 2.2. In thisrespect, Webster stated the following, referring to Henry Todd’s edition of Johnson’sDictionary 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 theantiquary; but to the great mass of readers, they are useless. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th-46th inthe “Introduction”])

In this way, Webster valued the usage and custom of language for maximizing its potentialas a medium of communication. However, Thomas Pyles (1954:67) is not correct inclaiming that Webster’s “heart was really not in syntax” and that “Sentence structure andidiom actually concerned him but little”. Webster expressed his notion of grammar asfollows:

The Grammar of a language is a collection of principles and rules, taken from the establishedusages for the nation using that language; in other words, an exhibition of the genuine structure ofthe language. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st in the “Grammar”])

This statement clarifies that Webster was fully aware of and cared about the importance ofsentence 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 himit did not follow that language could not be modified by the reason to conform to principles ofreason. (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 principlesof the language, in its orthography and structure; to purify it from some palpable errors, and reducethe number of its anomalies, thus giving it more regularity and consistency in its forms, both ofwords 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 viewof language changed and developed. I will cite a few of them below. In 1807, when hebegan 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 fellinto 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 andcorresponsive, &c. barbarisms which every correct ear instantly condemns – and for which hecertainly could plead no authority, even in the pedantic age in which he lived. (Boulton 1971:134-135)

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 theword 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 andcorresponsive at all:

W: COMPUNCTIOUS, a.Pricking the conscience; giving pain for offenses committed.

Let no compunctious visitings of natureShake my fell purpose. Shak.----------W: CORRESPONSIVE, a.Answerable; adapted. Shak.

Yoshihiko Ikegami has commented on Webster’s ambiguous view of lesser and worserbefore 1828 as follows:

Webster considers lesser ‘hardly allowable’, though admitting that it is widely used (H4 [thefourth edition of the Grammatical Institute, Part II] (1787) p. 86). In Ph [the Philosophical andPractical Grammar], however, he cites lesser as the comparative along with less (1807, p. 63). Butelsewhere he notes that ‘double comparatives and superlatives, being improper and useless, are notto be used’ and that ‘worser [...] is obsolete [...] lesser is still used’ (p. 165 note). (Ikegami1971:57)

This ambiguity is regarded as the result of Webster’s changing view of the usage of theword. His final decision on their use is seen in the entries on lesser and worser in hisDictionary. The entries read that lesser is “a corruption; but too well established to bediscarded” and that worser is “a vulgar word, and not used in good writing or speaking”; itcan be said that his view of lesser here also indicates that he had become considerably moredescriptive 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 beformulated and shown how it is revealed in his Dictionary, both of which are prerequisitesfor analysing his verbal examples from a linguistic perspective. Here, an important questionmay 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 toin this sub-section. In most cases, the reason lies in Webster’s view of etymology. That is, ithas often been recognised as essentially based on his imagination. However, is suchinterpretation justified? In order for this section to be more meaningful, and for making theanalyses in the main body of the thesis fully productive, I will need to examine and clarifythe true significance of Webster’s view of etymology here.

It has generally been acknowledged that Webster enthusiastically studied etymology tomake his Dictionary complete. According to Read (1967:166), Webster even stayed inFrance 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 toconsiderably 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, inabout 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 tracewords 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 assistancewhich I wanted; of learning the real state of the pronunciation of our language in England, as wellas the general state of philology in that country; and of attempting to bring about some agreementor coincidence of opinions, in regard to unsettled points in pronunciation and grammaticalconstruction. (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 withsevere criticism. One major reason for this is his acceptance of John Tooke’s linguistictheory and his ‘rejection’ of William Jones’s model of Indo-European linguistics; thereason why I put the word rejection in quotation marks here is that Webster was not blessedwith the opportunity to know the significance of Jones’s achievement and thus was unableto reject it as such (see below). Tooke was renowned as a radical politician whose variedacquaintances included James Boswell, Jeremy Bentham, William Godwin and ThomasPaine. He wrote a book ���� ���������, or the Diversions of Purley (1786-1805), anapproach to language and grammar which made his reputation at the time but is harshlycriticized now by modern authorities for its wild speculation. No explanation is necessaryabout Jones who is often described as the pioneer of comparative philology. Webster wasdeeply 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, andthe idea that the study of English etymology should be based upon a study of the olderforms 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 thelicentiousness of etymologists, not only in transposing letters, but in totally disregarding thevowels, 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 beenbrought up in the tradition of comparative philology. Albert Baugh (2002:367) has said thatWebster’s “self-assurance had its faults as well as its virtues”, and that “It led him to ignorediscoveries from Europe that were establishing the principles of comparative linguistics,and to spend years writing etymologies that were inadequate even for his time.” SidneyLandau (1984:61) also claimed that “The major discoveries of the German philologists,especially Jacob Grimm, were just becoming widely known, but Webster’s naturalarrogance, contentiousness, and contempt for any theory that controverted his own blindedhim 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 turnout to be unfair. Laird has stated the following, which is basically in line with Baugh’s andLandau’s comments but also includes another notable fact:

[...] just at this time [the beginning of the nineteenth century], of course, the evidence was comingto light which has led to our understanding of language relationships. Webster even encounteredsome 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 wasprobably there that he encountered Jones’s findings. However, Laird seems to haveoverlooked 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 OxfordUniversity. This is apparently a strange fact. However, it should be noted that Jones’sfindings were more reputable in America than in England at the time Webster was inEngland. That is, it was in 1786 that Jones mentioned the affinity of the group of languageswhich was to be called ‘Indo-European languages’ later. And in that same year the first partof Tooke’s major work on language, ���� ���������� ��� ��� Diversion of Purley, waspublished. This sub-section is not the place for the discussion of the difference betweenJones and Tooke, but it is necessary to see how each of them influenced authorities inEngland 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 intellectualand scholarly life of England during the first third of the nineteenth century. For thirty years it keptEngland immune to the new philology until the results and methods finally had to be importedfrom 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 authoritiesin 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 Englishpublic in a London journal, Barker dwelt upon Webster’s etymological advances [...]. (Read1967:172)

The person referred to here is the English classical scholar and lexicographer EdmundBarker, 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 haddeveloped by the eighteenth century that there was an “affinity” among the languages that we nowcall the Indo-European family. (Read 1967:163-164)

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

25

(1) When Webster was spending time in England, Jones was considerably less well knownthan Tooke.

(2) Although Webster had been aware of Jones’s theory of Indo-European linguisticaffinities, little more than the following (quoted by David Micklethwait) was available inprint:

The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure: more perfect than theGreek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either. Yet bearing to bothof them a strong affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than couldpossibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed that no philologer could examine themall three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, nolonger exists: there is a similar reason though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both theGothick and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with theSanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family, if this were the place fordiscussing 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 wasbased on “Asiatic Researches, vol. 3, p. 489”. However, it would have been difficult formost linguists to find epoch-making significance in this short passage withoutcommentaries by linguists such as Jacob Grimm who began to be widely known in Americashortly 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 secondedition 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 thecommon origin of words only when written with the same letters” etc. as already mentionedin this sub-section.

(3) The third reason why Webster ‘rejected’ Jones’s model of Indo-European linguisticscan be sought in Read’s account shown below, with which I agree. In a word, Websterworked under extreme pressure at a critical time for acknowledging the significance ofhistorical-comparative linguistics:

Noah Webster [...] finished the manuscript of his great dictionary in January of 1825, and then wasso engrossed in seeing it through the press that he was oblivious to the new scholarship. (Read1967:170)

The new Scandinavian findings in linguistics [...] did not impinge upon Webster until theproofreading 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 missedthe opportunity of incorporating Jones’s finding. Actually, Webster did not reject Indo-European linguistics intentionally.

26

There is an example which clearly shows that Webster’s study of etymology was not awaste of time. It concerns the spelling of despatch. A considerable number of Englishdictionaries today regard despatch as a variant of dispatch. In the COBUILD dictionary, forinstance, the entry on despatch merely reads “See dispatch”. The situation is the same inthe OALD. The origin of despatch has usually been ascribed to Johnson’s misspelling in hisDictionary. James Murray (1900:41), with the recognition that dispatch stemmed from anItalian 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 ofJohnson’s Dictionary has caused this erroneous spelling despatch to become generallyknown and to be looked upon as authoritative”. The entry on despatch in the secondedition 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- (althoughJohnson 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 spellingdespatch 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 seventeenthcentury 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, thesame.” The full entry in Skinner (to whom Johnson acknowledged an indebtedness foretymologies) 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 theword was not from Italian but French. This suggestion of Osselton’s becomes justifiedwhen we read the entry on despatch in Johnson’s Dictionary. Johnson clearly indicated thefollowing:

J: To DESPATCH. v.a. [depescher, French.]

However, more than one hundred and fifty years before Osselton’s objection, Webster waswell 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 theword. 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 andArmoric.

It may be worth pointing out at the end of this discussion that Webster’s theory of theorigin of language has often been questioned. Richard Rollins (1980:128-130) hasintroduced relevant censure by such authorities as Mitford Mathews, Joseph Friend,Charlton Laird, George Krapp and James Murray. The major reason for this censure is thatWebster was theological in discussing the origin of language. The part of the ‘Origin ofLanguage’ 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 otherfaculties and knowledge, by supernatural power; or in other words, was of divine origin. (Webster1828: 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 theworking rudiments of a language were the immediate gift of God. This language was uniquelypreserved by Noah and his sons, after the flood, and Webster named all European and manyAsiatic 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 inwhat he called Chaldee. (Laird 1972:281)

Certainly, as far as the origin of language is concerned, Webster’s view was scriptural andfar from scientific. However, this does not mean that his description of etymology is of novalue. As analysed above in this sub-section, much of his etymological information isworthy of appreciation. In this sense, Rollins’s (1980:130) claim that “Webster’setymology was simply a literal extrapolation of scriptural truth into another field” seems tobe a hasty conclusion.

1.5.5 Generalization of the Analysis

Johnson went through hardship, aiming to fix the language while at the same timerecognising its impossibility. Webster was also long torn between prescriptivism anddescriptivism. He was originally prescriptive and gradually became more descriptive,discarding his interest in Latin grammar, which is closely related to ‘reason’, and attachingever more importance to the “universal colloquial practice”, which he thought “the real andonly genuine language”; I discussed in Section 1.2 the concepts of ‘reason’ and the ‘facts ofusage’, and their relevance to prescriptivism and descriptivism. He had not entirelyabandoned prescriptivism until his Dictionary was published in 1828, but it would bewrong 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 ofgrammar will be revealed through the analysis of his verbal examples to which littleattention has been paid to date.

With regard to Webster’s study of etymology, I discussed it as proof of his relativelyscholarly 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 ofetymology was scientifically done even with the historical limitations, as it actually was, itcan be said that it helped him to formulate the principle on the basis of which he couldjudge the ‘correct’ usage of words independent of Johnson’s view of grammar. Concerningconcrete examples, I will refer to them, for instance, in Sections 5.2.2, 7.4, 7.6, 8.1.2 and8.2.3.

2: Methodology

2.1 Introduction

In this section, I will itemize seven procedures which were adopted in this thesis: selectingan appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionary to be compared with Webster’s; adopting asampling method which is concerned with the analysis of general tendencies of Johnson’sand Webster’s practices in supplying verbal examples; adopting a statistical method in theanalyses of selected entries which comprises the core of my methods; selecting books ongrammar 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 sometimestroubled authorities; finding a solution to the problem of authorship of some works which isrelated to the tabulation of the results of my analyses; and selecting an appropriate versionof 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 alsoadopted a few other procedures. Specifically, I set up a method for comparing Johnson'sDictionary and two continental dictionaries, and that for recording sources of citationswithin the range of entries on words for the letter L; they are, respectively, explained inSections 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 tobe carried out is to determine an appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionary to be collatedwith Webster’s which was published in 1828. As it commanded wide popularity, Johnson’sDictionary had gone through various editions by 1828. In addition to this, Webster did nothimself clarify which edition of Johnson’s Dictionary he referred to. Therefore, authoritieshave been divided over the issue of which edition of Johnson’s Dictionary should becompared with Webster’s.

In this situation, in his ‘Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson’ (1962), a pioneeringarticle in the comparative study of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, Joseph Reed usedthe 1799 edition of Johnson’s Dictionary. The reason for this is, as Reed (1962:95) hasremarked, that a copy of this edition which was owned by New York Public Library as of1962 contains Webster’s manuscript notes. However, there is a problem about Reed’sselection. Webster’s manuscript notes in the edition were jotted down for the preparation ofhis 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 Webstercontinued to refer to the 1799 edition after 1806. Besides, in his Dictionary published in1828, Webster (1828: n. pag. [45th-46th in the “Introduction”]) mentioned Johnson’sDictionary 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 yearwhen 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 newestedition 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 DavidMicklethwait’s discovery, Webster referred to Alexander Chalmers’s abridged edition ofJohnson’s Dictionary which was published in 1820, the year when Webster was in themidst of compiling his Dictionary. Micklethwait (2000:183-184) proved his discoverythrough 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 beenusing Chalmers as his primary source”. In such a problematic situation, it is hardly possibleto determine the one and only edition of Johnson’s Dictionary that Webster may havereferred to. Furthermore, whichever editions of Johnson’s Dictionary Webster may haveused, it is generally acknowledged that Johnson was not involved in any of revised editionsof his Dictionary except for an abridged edition in 1756 and the fourth edition in 1773. Andit is also generally recognised that there is little possibility that Webster used the firstedition or fourth of Johnson’s when he compiled his Dictionary; as to the abridged editionin 1756, it was a small dictionary and it is hardly imaginable that Webster made it aprimary source.

However, the problem of selecting an appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionarybecomes complicated when the purpose of comparison between Johnson’s and Webster’sdictionaries lies in the clarification of how Webster borrowed from and modified Johnson’sDictionary published at Webster’s time. I have not addressed this point in the thesis. Ratherthan trying to clarify the difference between Webster’s Dictionary and one of the editionsof Johnson’s which were revised approximately 70 years after its first edition, I have triedto see the difference between the most elaborate dictionary in Britain in the middle of theeighteenth century and that in America in the first half of the nineteenth century in terms ofthe technique of supplying verbal examples. As discussed in Section 1.2, my fundamentalrecognition is that the dictionary is a product that serves the needs of the time. When Ibased myself on this recognition, the solution of the problem of selecting a particularedition of Johnson’s Dictionary came a step closer. Theodore Stenberg was also anauthority who took this view. For his analysis of how the treatment of phrases andsentences 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 firstedition of Webster’s Dictionary and the second edition of Webster’s New InternationalDictionary (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 theoriginal first edition of Johnson’s. In this selection of mine, there lay an idea that the twodictionaries were compiled in their respective historical contexts. This means that whateversimilarities there may be between Webster’s Dictionary and other editions of Johnson’sDictionary, they are regarded as the results of Webster’s selection based on his criteria inaccordance with his time.

This selection of the edition of Johnson’s Dictionary has proved to be beneficialprimarily in two respects. Firstly, it has allowed me to compare Johnson’s and Webster’soriginal view of the language which are revealed in their dictionaries. Secondly, I was ableto analyse Johnson’s verbal examples in relation to the historical background of hisDictionary, 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 reflectJohnson’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 practicesin supplying verbal examples, I have adopted a sampling method. In the study of Englishdictionaries, various types of sampling methods have been adopted to date. For instance, inanalysing the similarities and differences between Johnson’s Dictionary and the secondedition of Nathan Bailey’s Dictionarium Britannicum (1736), a dictionary Johnson referredto when compiling his Dictionary, Daisuke Nagashima (1983:147-158) compared theirrespective entries under the letter C. Gabriele Stein (1985) studied thirty Englishdictionaries before Robert Cawdrey’s A Table Alphabeticall (1604) by investigatingstretches 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, threerepresentative authorities, namely, Joseph Reed (1962), Joseph Friend (1967) and DavidMicklethwait (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 addedvirtue of its position in the book: Webster had by this time settled down to a regular modusoperandi ”. In the same way, Micklethwait (2000:180) has claimed that “To be sure offinding Webster loping through the lexicon at a typically even space, we must look at himat work on the letter L”. Though Friend has not said anything about the reason for hisselection of the L’s, he is assumed to have thought like the other two authorities. TheodoreStenberg’s method is different from those of the three authorities. In order to compareJohnson’s and Webster’s use of citations from Pope, he investigated first 50 pages from theA’s, G’s, M’s and S’s and the first 29 pages from the W’s in their dictionaries. He stated thefollowing:

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 twenty-nine pages needed to make the total approximately one-tenth of the Dictionary. I therefore chosethe W’s. (Stenberg 1944:197)

This was, Stenberg (1944:197) said, to make his sampling “fairly representative of thewhole 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 withReed and Micklethwait that Webster is thought to have matured as a lexicographer by thetime he arrived at the L’s; this is conceivable of Johnson, as well. Secondly, I thought thisselection would serve as a basis for a comparative analysis of the three authorities. Asdiscussed in the previous sub-section, Reed compared Webster’s Dictionary with the 1799edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, Friend with its 1806 edition and Micklethwait with its1820 edition. None of the three compared Webster’s Dictionary with the first edition ofJohnson’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’swhich 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 inrevealing 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 theauthorities of Webster’s Dictionary have long held misconceptions about Johnson’s verbalexamples. This is mainly because they have generally compared Webster’s Dictionary withthe editions of Johnson’s Dictionary which had been revised by the lexicographers wellmore than forty years after Johnson. And this means that the authorities may have hadmisconceptions about the differences between Johnson’s verbal examples and Webster’suntil 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 typesof entries, as well as their usual practices in the whole of the dictionaries, in supplyingverbal 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 oflexicography. Quite recently, Charlotte Brewer (1999:48-49) has used line charts to showhow editors of the OED supplied citations; for instance, she proved that they quotedespecially frequently from sources which had been published in a decade, e.g. between1291 and 1300 and between 1391 and 1400, in a figure entitled ‘OED Quotations 1151-1470’. In his analysis of historic dictionaries in Britain, America and Japan, YoshiroKojima (1999) often counted the number of their entry-words; this is beneficial to grasp anaspect of historical changes in lexicographical technique. With regard to Johnson’sDictionary, when he compared it with the second edition of Bailey’s DictionariumBritannicum (1736), one of the sources of Johnson’s Dictionary as I mentioned in theprevious sub-section, Daisuke Nagashima (1983:148) has demonstrated how many entriesJohnson added to and eliminated from Bailey’s Dictionary. Such a method as Nagashima’shas also been adopted by Joseph Reed (1962:95-105) in his comparison of Johnson’s andWebster’s dictionaries. Reed (1962:95-105) has further made use of the method to analysethe lexicographers’ practice in supplying citations; he has tried to show how many citationsWebster added to and eliminated from Johnson’s Dictionary.

In this way, statistical methods have often been adopted by quite a few authorities; twoother examples related to Johnson’s citations are discussed in Section 4.1.1. However, asfar as Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples are concerned, no authority seems to havethought of classifying entries according to the types of their entry-words before adoptingthe methods. In other words, statistical methods adopted by Reed and others so far havebeen useful to reveal how Johnson and Webster generally tended to supply verbal examplesin the whole of their dictionaries. I do not deny the importance of such methods. Asdiscussed in the previous sub-section, I myself tried to show Johnson’s and Webster’s usualpractices 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 inrelation 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 inrespective entries on verbs of high frequency, their inflected forms, prepositions,prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries; I also treated entries on primary verbs andtheir inflected forms, but a statistical method was not used for this task because of the smallnumber 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 theclarification of the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s practice in supplyingcitations for function words, for words which require sophisticated knowledge of grammarin their treatment, and for infinitives of verbs of high frequency whose characteristic lies inwide range of senses rather than grammatical function. As to entries on preterites andparticiples of verbs of high frequency, most of which are irregularly inflected, I thoughttheir analysis would clarify to what extent the lexicographers were conscious ofmorphology in compiling their dictionaries. And I expected that the analysis of entries oninflected forms of primary verbs would reveal the relations between their citations, if theyhad 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 ofsupplying invented examples, as well as that of supplying citations, within the range ofentries cited here. Then, I also provided tables, to the extent possible, which reflect theresults of my analyses.

Here, it naturally becomes necessary to solve the problem of the selection of entries onverbs of high frequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. As to entries on verbs ofhigh frequency, Johnson (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45) in the “Preface”]) enumerated theexamples 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 generallythought to be appropriate for the purpose of my investigation, though I regard full in theexamples as a misspelling of fall and do as a primary verb. Therefore, I selected entries onbear (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 setof examples. However, it will be sufficient if I investigate entries on 19 prepositions in bothdictionaries: 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 bedetermined based on the selection of those on prepositions. Out of the 19 prepositions ofmy selection, Johnson thought that at least 12 of them also function as adverbs, since heprovided entries on the 12 words as adverbs in the first edition of his Dictionary. These areabout, after, before, below, by, down, in, off, on, over, through and to. I have investigatedentries on these prepositional adverbs in the two dictionaries.

In investigating the entries determined thus, I have not dealt with Johnson’s andWebster’s verbal examples and comments, which they occasionally provided, in sub-entriesprovided for idioms. This also applies to entries on other types of words to be dealt withexcept for those in the L’s. This is because I intended to focus attention on thelexicographers’ verbal examples in relation to the case where their relevant entry-wordsretain their original senses. Both lexicographers provided quite a few sub-entries for phrasalverbs, 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 JanSvartvik (1975:263) have correctly stated that for some phrasal verbs “the meaning of thecombination cannot be built up from the meanings of the individual verb and adverb, forexample: 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 ofTom McArthur’s (1992:497) definition of idiom seems to be convincing: “An expressionunique to a language, especially one whose sense is not predictable from the meanings andarrangement of its elements, such as kick the bucket a slang term meaning ‘to die’, whichhas nothing obviously to do with kicking or buckets”. If I had also dealt with sub-entries onphrases in which original senses of words are lost, there would have been little meaning toseparate entries on verbs of high frequency, those on prepositions, those on modalauxiliaries and so on from each other; my intention has been to analyse how Johnson andWebster supplied verbal examples for words which retain their original senses. For thisreason, I have not treated sub-entries on idioms in their dictionaries. This naturally meansthat the number of verbal examples in each table, which I referred to above in this sub-section, does not include that in sub-entries provided for idioms.

The analysis of how Johnson and Webster supplied verbal examples for the respectivetypes of words cited in this sub-section comprises the core of the thesis. And the chapters inthe main body of the thesis are arranged in accordance with this analysis. The results of theanalysis have proved that Johnson and Webster respectively supplied their verbal examplesbased on their view of the usage of the types of words. Besides, the verbal examplesclarified quite a few differences between Johnson and Webster in terms of their view of thelanguage, many of which are thought to have been unnoticed to date. In this sense, it cansafely be said from a broad perspective that I have successfully achieved the purposes ofthe 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 ofJohnson and Webster, and the books of contemporary grammar which can be regarded asauthoritative. As for the former, I have mainly referred to Sterling Leonard’s reissuededition of The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800 (1962). As its titleindicates, 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 discussedWebster in 60 sections out of 188 which comprise the work. Though relatively old, thisbook has long been regarded as authoritative among experts on historical grammar. BertilSundby (1985:158), for instance, has said about the book, “The linguistic norms of the Ageof Reason have been well described by Leonard (1929), and the topical glossary he includesis useful as far as it goes”. Leonard’s book is still regarded as useful to grasp thegeneralities of grammarians’ thoughts at Johnson’s and Webster’s times, though forspecialized study of historical grammar, Sundby’s Dictionary of English NormativeGrammar, 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, Ihave 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 etal.’s Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985). Few authorities will beagainst 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 themethods adopted in the thesis. However, it was important for me to solve the problem offrom what grammatical perspectives I should interpret some of the findings in the thesis. Itcan even be said that how I solve the problem partially determines the characteristic of thethesis. I hope my solution with the use of the books I cited in this sub-section will bebeneficial 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 andinvented examples. Ronald Wells (1973:115) called them ‘quoted citations’ and ‘inventedillustrations’, 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 isdifficult to draw. One reason for this is that Johnson frequently modified phrases andsentences 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 andsentences. For instance, in the entry on sophistically in his Dictionary, Johnson suppliedthe 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 mostsophistically. The fall from a million to a hundred thousand pounds is not so great, as from eighthundred pounds a year to one.

Robert DeMaria (1986:17) has cited another interesting example. He found the following inthe entry on learn (v.a.) in Johnson’s Dictionary:

You taught me language, and my profit on’tIs, 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 fromShakespeare’s Tempest:

36

You taught me language, and my profit on’tIs, 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 “Johnsonacknowledges the moral, educational nature of” his Dictionary, and that “The Dictionary isa moral teacher”. And in their article the ‘selection and use of the illustrative quotations inDr. Johnson’s Dictionary ’ (1972:61-72), Gwin Kolb and Ruth Kolb have shown numerousexamples which illustrate Johnson’s modification of phrases and sentences taken fromoriginal sources. Such modification is what Johnson himself admitted in the “Preface” tohis 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 stateof disquiet and embarrassment, memory can contain, and purposed to supply at the review whatwas 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 oneof the characteristics of Johnson’s Dictionary lies in “accurate quotations”, and that theywere the “essentials of the most authoritative and prescriptive dictionary of the Englishlanguage”; this claim is found erroneous when the analyses by Wimsatt, DeMaria and theKolbs, which are mentioned above, are referred to.

In spite of this situation, however, I have regarded Johnson’s verbal examples whosesources are indicated as citations and other examples as invented examples. And I have alsotreated Webster’s verbal examples in the same way. It was, in a sense, natural for Johnsonand Webster to modify original phrases and sentences. As discussed in Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3and 1.5.2, this is because both of them held a prescriptive view of the language to a greateror lesser degree throughout the task of compiling their dictionaries. The verbatim copyingof original phrases and sentences is a matter which basically concerns the lexicographers ofdescriptive dictionaries. Besides, prior to the first volume of the OED (1884), theimportance of descriptiveness had not been fully recognized among lexicographers. RichardTrench (1857:9-10), an advocate of the compilation of the OED, has censured such short-comings in Johnson’s Dictionary as an insufficient number of entry-words in his renownedOn Some Deficiencies in Our English Dictionaries (1857), but even he did not refer to itsinaccurate citations.

Concerning Webster’s Dictionary, there were other problems to be solved. One of themis that Webster very frequently indicated the names of authors and titles of books in entriesin his Dictionary. This is expounded in Section 4.3.3, but he often practiced this, evidentlywithout 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 noway be regarded as citations, though the names of authors are attached to them. WhenWebster 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 areput, as Webster’s citations, though I have shown them in normal-sized letters in everyrelevant sub-section for the sake of convenience; I exceptionally write them in small-sizedletters 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 areapplied 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 willnever coincide. J. Appleton.

This method differs from Joseph Reed’s. He generally regarded phrases and sentences towhich names of authors or titles of books are put as citations. This is evident from hisstatement which has been made in his analysis of citations for entries in the stretch of theL’s in Webster’s Dictionary. Based on the recognition that Webster added 448 citations toJohnson’s Dictionary in the L’s, Reed (1962:104) claimed that “more than half of theillustrations he added to Johnson (at least in the L’s) came from the Bible and anencyclopaedia”. I have expounded on Webster’s citations in the L’s in Section 4.3, butWebster did not add as many as 448 citations to Johnson’s Dictionary within the range, andhe rarely supplied citations from an encyclopaedia there. Reed is naturally thought to havealso 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 objectson the surface of the earth; in other words, the difference in the distance of objects from the centerof the earth. Encyc.

This is the whole contents of the entry on leveling. Webster may have referred to anencyclopaedia in writing this passage, but it is not written in small-sized letters. Myrecognition 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 quiterare, there are phrases and sentences which Webster wrote in normal-sized letters whichcan 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, theleast apostle of all the apostles. 1 Cor. xv.

In this example, Webster put the sentence “I am the least of the apostles” in quotationmarks, indicating its source. In such a case as this, the relevant phrases and sentences havebeen 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 hispractice of supplying them to illustrate the usage of words preceded by as. I have regardedsuch examples as invented, even in the case where names of authors and titles of books areput 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-sizedletters and is not put in quotation marks.

The more I perused Webster’s verbal examples, the more I came to recognize how littlethey had been read by many authorities so far. It was surprising that Reed did not seem tohave had differentiated Webster’s citations, invented examples and definitions withauthors’ names and the titles of works. Besides, to the extent of my knowledge, fewauthorities have analysed Webster’s verbal examples as closely as Reed. For this reason, itwas necessary for me to produce a method for the analysis of the examples by myself. Itseems that the method has successfully functioned to compare his verbal examples withJohnson’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 authorshipof some works which constitute sources of citations. As a rule, I have indicated the namesof authors, not the titles of works, in tables in order to show how frequently Johnson andWebster 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 infull 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 contributedarticles to the magazines, namely, George Berkeley, Alexander Pope, John Gay, JonathanSwift, Eustace Budgell, John Phillips and so on.

This situation has sometimes troubled authorities who have tried to analyse Johnson’scitations, especially, by adopting statistical methods. As far as I can judge, the problem hasbeen dealt with in two ways. In his unpublished dissertation, Lewis Freed (1939:45-87) hasascribed the authorship of phrases and sentences from the three magazines entirely toAddison. However, this practice has been censured by Theodore Stenberg, based on hisown analysis. Stenberg (1944:203) claimed that “I have come to the conclusion that notmuch more than ninety percent of the Spectator quotations are Addison’s, and that almostall of those from the Tatler are Steel’s”. In contrast to Freed, Allen Read tried to solve theproblem by showing the possible range of the quantity of phrases and sentences fromAddison. Specifically, Read (1986b:37) claimed that citations from Addison account for 3.8percent to 4.3 percent within the range of the M’s in Johnson’s Dictionary; 3.8 percent hererefers to citations with the indication of Addison, and 4.3 percent those with the indicationof Addison and the three magazines.

My solution has been different from those of both Freed’s and Read’s. That is, whenJohnson and Webster put the name Addison to their citations, I have regarded them ascoming from Addison, but when they put the titles Tatler, Spectator or Guardian to theircitations, I have considered them as what they are. In other words, I have not tried todetermine the authorship of phrases and sentences taken from the three magazines in thetwo dictionaries, and instead I have indicated the titles of the magazines in relevant tables. Ihave also applied this method to other cases where Johnson and Webster took phrases andsentences from the works whose authors are hardly determinable, though such cases havebeen quite small in number.

Another problem was caused by the authorship of a book entitled The Causes of theDecay of Christian Piety (1667). Johnson often quoted from this in his Dictionary. Theauthorship of this book is not exactly known. However, it is generally acknowledged thatthe same author wrote a book entitled The Whole Duty of Man (1658) and that there is astrong probability that Richard Allestree, a theologian, wrote this. For instance, MargaretDrabble (1985:1065), an authority on English literature, has claimed that the author of TheWhole Duty of Man, therefore that of The Cause of the Decay of Christian Piety, isAllestree. Besides, Allen Reddick (1996:231-232), who has expounded on the compilationprocess of Johnson’s Dictionary, has said that “Of Allestree’s Whole Duty of Man, Johnsonsaid that he had disliked it as a child but years later recommended it for study to DanielAstle” 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 seemto have encountered the problem which troubled the authorities who tackled the statisticalanalysis of Johnson’s verbal examples. It is hardly possible to determine the originalauthors of all of the citations. As far as I can judge, the definitive solution to the problem isyet to be found. I formulated the method as discussed in this sub-section so that it may behelpful to the achievement of the analyses in the thesis, and it has proved to function wellfor the assessment of the linguistic significance of Johnson’s and Webster’s verbalexamples.

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, itwas necessary to select an appropriate version of the English Bible to compare them withrelevant original phrases and sentences. As to Johnson’s biblical citations, it has been acustomary practice among authorities to use Authorized Version (AV) for such a purpose.For instance, Maurice Quinlan has confirmed this throughout his book, Samuel Johnson: ALayman’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 whenreferring 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 yearsbetween 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 inAmerica. Concerning the former, Metzger (2001:82), showing its title A LiberalTranslation 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’sanalysis is correct, it can hardly be the case that Webster used Harward’s translation. As forThomson’s version, Metzger has stated the following:

[...] at the time of its publication, [...] it never enjoyed wide popular appeal. Consequently, it hadonly a limited sale and was not financially successful. Many of the unsold copies were eventuallydisposed 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 giveserious 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 genuinepopular English of Saxon origin; peculiarly adapted to the subjects, and in many passages, unitingsublimity to beautiful simplicity.” (Metzger 2001:91)

Metzger has also quoted a long passage from the preface to Webster’s version of theEnglish 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 falleninto disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it waswhen they were introduced into the version [...]. (Metzger 2001:91)

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

41

The English version of the sacred scriptures, now in general use, was first published in the year1611, in the reign of James I. Although the translators made many alterations in the language offormer versions, yet no small part of the language is the same, as that of the versions made in thereign of Queen Elizabeth. (Webster 1833: n. pag. [1st in the “Preface”])

Following this statement, Webster discussed the principles by which he revised AV. Thefact 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. Forthis reason, I came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to use AV for the purposeof examining Webster’s biblical citations in his Dictionary.

Thus, finally, I determined to use AV for the detailed analysis of biblical citations inboth Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries. In applying this principle, I think I havesuccessfully 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 continentaldictionaries when he engaged in compiling his Dictionary. They are the Vocabolario degliAccademici 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 areboth normative dictionaries which were compiled for the refinement of the languages in therespective countries. They were severally compiled and issued by the nationally authorizedinstitutes indicated in their titles: the Accademici della Crusca (the Crusca Academyhereafter) and the Académie Françoise (the French Academy hereafter). Before Johnsonbegan to compile his Dictionary, the Vocabolario had gone through four editions and theDictionnaire three. Concerning the arguments about the relations between Johnson’sDictionary and the two dictionaries, James Sledd and Gwin Kolb have summarized them asfollows:

The influence of the French Academy or the Accademia della Crusca is more likely to bediscussed 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 cannotbe 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 menof letters in England from the 1650’s to the 1750’s, the activities of the two institutes werealways an object of envy. Because of the drastic changes in English which had beenbrought 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 worksmight not be able to be read by posterity. It was natural for such people to have an ardentwish to stabilize the language in its most desirable style. They recognized the activities ofthe continental institutes as the best models to follow. In 1679, John Dryden stated asfollows 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]. ‘Twas the employment of the whole Academy for many years, for the perfect knowledge of a Tonguewas never attain’d by any single person. The Court, the Colledge and the Town, must be joyn’d init. And as our English is a Composition of the dead and living Tongues, there is requir’d a perfectknowledge, 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 thefewest faults in prose and verse. (Dryden 1679:222)

43

In almost the same way, Swift remarked in 1712 in his Proposal for Correcting, Improvingand Ascertaining the English Tongue:

And the French, for these last Fifty Years, hath been polishing as much as it will bear, and appearsto 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 Degreeof 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 historicalcontext. Johnson was also aware of the activities of the continental institutes, and paid closeattention 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], aseries of comedies called la Fiera, or the Fair, was professedly written by Buonaroti [...]. (Johnson1755: n. pag. [8th (par. 79) in the “Preface”])

And, referring to Paolo Beni, an Italian grammarian who harshly censured the Vocabolarioin the 1610’s, Johnson continued:

[...] if the aggregated knowledge, and co-operating diligence of the Italian academicians, did notsecure them from the censure of Beni; if the embodied criticks of France, when fifty years hadbeen spent upon their work, were obliged to change its oeconomy, and give their second editionanother 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 referredto by Bruno Migliorini (1983:454).

In these statements of Johnson’s, though they partially reflect his doubts about theeffectiveness of the two institutes, it is clearly revealed that he not only knew the contentsof their dictionaries but also tried to examine how much influence they exerted on theItalian and French languages. Then, in the “Preface” to his other dictionary, an abridgementof 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 publisheda dictionary like those compiled by the academies of Italy and France, for the use of such as aspireto 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 essentialbackground materials for his Dictionary. This means that it is highly probable that thedictionaries influenced Johnson’s Dictionary to a considerable extent. This probability, asmentioned at the beginning of this section, has long been suggested by a number ofauthorities. 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 assimilateit as far as possible to Italian and French models”. Strangely, however, the contents ofJohnson’s Dictionary and those of the two continental dictionaries have hardly beencompared 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. Thepurpose of this task is not to make exhaustive analysis of the dictionaries but to obtainfundamental knowledge about Johnson's indebtedness to the two continental dictionaries inrespect of the formulation of the entry and the provision of verbal examples in relation togrammatical information. The scope of the analysis will be mostly limited to the entries ontake (v.a.) in Johnson’s Dictionary, tenere in the Vocabolario and prendre in theDictionnaire. The reason why I selected these entries is that take, tenere and prendre areused quite frequently in English, Italian and French, respectively, and that the words are incommon that they are inflected irregularly. It can be said, therefore, that the analysis of theentries is useful to obtain concise knowledge about how the respective dictionaries treatedthe usage of the languages. Through the analysis, it is also expected that the basic structureof entries in Johnson’s Dictionary will be clarified. Based on this recognition, I willobserve the division of entries and the provision of verbal examples and the information onverbal inflections in the dictionaries through the selected entries. However, for theknowledge of how the three dictionaries provide information on verbal inflections, therelevant 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 selectionof the editions of the two continental dictionaries. As to the Vocabolario, I will select thefirst edition published in 1612. This is because the fourth edition (1738), which Johnson isthought to have referred to, was not available to me. However, according to BrunoMigliorini’s (1983:366-67, 450-53, 510 and 516) analysis, the differences between the firstedition and the fourth of the Vocabolario are almost limited to the spheres of augmentationof entry-words and the reduction of citations; if the result of his analysis is correct, the useof 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 hisDictionary, 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 entryon 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 notplaced for the first sub-entry. For instance, the first 3 sub-entries in the entry severallybegin 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, necadere. [...] ¶ In uece di possed possedére, auere in sua podesta.

This example also shows that the sub-entries in the Vocabolario successively continue oneafter another, not starting at the beginnings of lines. Then, following the explanation of thesenses of tenere, 50 other sub-entries are provided for idioms with the use of the same flagsign. 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 indicatethe senses of tenere as shown below:

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

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 maturedlexicographic principles. Still, however, it is just conceivable that Johnson was inspired bythe way entries were divided in the Vocabolario. If we imagine an entry in which numbersreplace flag signs, and each sub-entry starts at the beginning of a line, the structure of theentry is the type adopted in Johnson’s Dictionary. In Johnson’s case, he firstly provided 66sub-entries in the entry on take to explain the senses of take. The first two sub-entries areas 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, 47sub-entries on relevant idioms are provided. This begins with the number following 66 likethis:

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 beginningof the entry on prendre, there is a part in which general senses and usage of prendre areexplained. Following this part, 20 items are arranged preceded by the word ‘PRENDRE’ insmall capitals. It may be possible to regard these items as sub-entries, but each of the itemsis further divided by the italicized word ‘PRENDRE’. Then, in these sub-items, places foridioms 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 ofdividing entries is concerned, it can hardly be said that the Dictionnaire exerted influenceon 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 verbalexamples. As to the Vocabolario, all verbal examples are extracts from texts; that is, theyare citations. The entry on tenere in the dictionary contains 94 citations; these citations areallocated in 50 sub-entries out of 60 in the entry. Most of the citations are from literaryworks; 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 ofminute indications of sources. Not only names of authors and titles but also numbers ofrelevant chapters and sections of works are usually indicated. The indications are placed atthe 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 ofabbreviations, is attached to the dictionary. This table gives particulars about the sources ofcitations. For instance, the table explains the sources as follows, referring to abbreviationsin 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 DanteAlighieri, 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 DivineComedy of Dante Alighieri. Revised by the Accademici della Crusca: Published in Firenze inoctavo.)

In this way, no less than 600 sources of citations are indicated in detail in the table. Thistable, accompanied by the indications of sources given in the body of the dictionary, clearlyshows how much importance the editors of the Vocabolario attached to citations fromliterary works. In the Vocabolario, invented examples are basically not supplied, though itcannot be denied that there is a possibility that the editors changed some original phrasesand sentences.

When verbal examples in the entry on tenere in Vocabolario are compared with those inthe entry on take in Johnson’s Dictionary, it becomes found that the latter are larger innumber than the former. In the entry on take, Johnson allocated as many as 180 citationseven in its limited sphere of 66 sub-entries provided for the explanation of the senses oftake; the citations are dispersed throughout the sub-entries. In respect of the indications ofsources, 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 stringsmay refer, for instance, to the same author or identical strings to different authors. Pope is referredto as Po., Pop., Pope, or Pope’s, sometimes followed by a title, sometimes not. Shakespeare isreferred 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 biblicalcitations; 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 fromthose in Johnson’s Dictionary in respect of quantity and indications of sources. Still, it cansafely be said that Johnson basically tried to adopt the way the editors of the Vocabolariohad adopted in supplying their citations.

In contrast to the Vocabolario and Johnson’s Dictionary, not a single citation wassupplied in the Dictionnaire. The Dictionnaire certainly contains an abundance of verbalexamples, but they appear to be entirely invented ones. In a sense, the verbal examples inthe Dictionnaire are almost countless, and may be regarded as by far the largest in numberamong the three dictionaries. However, this can be said on condition that such phrases asshown 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 dansune 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 inthe Dictionnaire; the examples are often paraphrased in other expressions. Thiscombination of the two, an invented example and its paraphrase(s), is supplied here andthere in the dictionary. Though not so frequently as the editors of the Dictionnaire, Johnsonalso supplied invented examples, paraphrasing them in other expressions. He did thismainly to provide grammatical information, which will be discussed in Section 8.1.3. Itmay possibly be said that he followed the precedent of the Dictionnaire in supplying hisinvented 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 verbsof highest frequency in the three dictionaries. In the Vocabolario, information on verbalinflections is not provided at all. Firstly, in the entry on tenere, no relevant explanation ismade. Secondly, not a single entry and sub-entry on the inflected forms of the verb, such astèngo, tiènni, terrò and tènga, is provided in the dictionary. For this reason, theVocabolario can be regarded as a literary dictionary in essence, having little relevance tothe grammar of the language.

In contrast to the Vocabolario, Johnson’s Dictionary goes into fair detail about verbalinflections. The entry on take begins thus: “preterite took, part. pass. taken, sometimestook”. 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 indetail in Section 5.2 through the comparison with Webster’s. Currently, it will be sufficientto point out that in these entries Johnson gave a grammatical account about the inflectedforms 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. Jeprendrai. Prends, prenez. Que je prenne. Que je prisse. Je prendrois, &c.

This paradigm illustrates the editors’ concern about verbal inflections. Among the inflectedforms 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 possonpris dans les filets. Un homme pris de vin. [...] Au jeu du Lansquenet, on dit, qu’Un homme estpris, Quand sa carte a été faite. Il avoit carte double & il a été pris le premier, il a été le premierpris.

The description about pris consists of 18 lines, in which 13 verbal examples are included; 4among the 13 are paraphrased in other expressions. This, however, does not mean that anentry 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 ofverbal inflections. In the English dictionaries before Johnson, inflected forms of verbs hadhardly been treated. Johnson can be said to have developed the lexicographical techniqueseen in the Dictionnaire in this respect by providing entries on inflected forms of verbs andtreating 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 observedfrom the viewpoint of the history of English lexicography. Many authorities have exertedthemselves 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 forestfor the trees. Such an enormous work as Johnson’s Dictionary is, its total picture will not beable to be seen only from such a viewpoint. A lot of historical literature illustrates thatJohnson 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 twodictionaries. Since Johnson compiled the Dictionary in the historical context that men ofletters were generally envious of the two dictionaries, the truest historical background of hisDictionary will not be clarified without such collation.

Though the focus of my attention in this section is extremely limited, it may safely besaid that Johnson was considerably influenced by the two continental dictionaries withinthe 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 exertionsdifferently from his preceding English lexicographers; I (Miyoshi 1992:601-606) have oncediscussed 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 ofthe basic arrangement of sub-entries in entries on verbs of highest frequency, Johnson canbe claimed to have imitated the Vocabolario. No trace of his imitation of the Dictionnairecan be seen in this respect. As to the way of supplying verbal examples, the Vocabolarioalso exerted considerable influence on him, but the possibility of the Dictionnaire’sinfluence cannot totally be denied. With regard to the treatment of verbal inflections, it canbe said that Johnson developed the way used in the Dictionnaire.

The analysis made in this section indicates that Johnson was considerably conscious ofthe provision of grammatical information. This strongly supports the probability that hefrequently supplied verbal examples, one of the most notable characteristics in theDictionary, 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 inhis 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, Johnsoncan hardly claim high rank”. This claim is based on their analysis of Johnson’s “Grammarof the English Tongue” attached to the Dictionary. The same authorities (1955:12) havealso said that the material is not worth much discussion. No one will be able to protectJohnson from their censure. Actually, Johnson’s “Grammar” is carelessly written, and thesection on syntax in it consists of no more than 18 lines.

Differently from Sledd and Kolb, Tetsuro Hayashi has not flatly disapproved ofJohnson’s treatment of English grammar. With the recognition that Johnson’s Dictionarywas full of grammatical information, Hayashi (1978:95) has claimed that “As one of theprerequisites of a grammatical dictionary, Johnson evidently held the idea that dictionaryshould 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 hisDictionary:

The words, thus selected and disposed, are grammatically considered: they are referred to thedifferent parts of speech; traced, when they are irregularly inflected, through their variousterminations; and illustrated by observations, not indeed of great or striking importance, separatelyconsidered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, and hitherto neglected or forgotten byEnglish grammarians. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 42) in the “Preface”])

De Witt Starnes and Gertrude Noyes observed the body of the Dictionary, remarking asfollows:

Special classifications of words [...] are indicated with more or less consistency [...] and grammaris treated both in an introductory section and throughout the word list. (Starnes and Noyes1948:195)

50

Though the legitimacy of this statement is yet to be examined, it sounds more convincingthan Sledd and Kolb’s and Hayashi’s statements because of the extensive scope of theirinvestigation.

3.2.2 Johnson and Two Leading Grammarians in the Eighteenth Century

Strangely, however, Johnson’s treatment of English grammar has hardly been observed inthe context of the history of English grammar. Johnson was a lexicographer at a time whenwork on the grammar of the language began to make significant progress. Sterling Leonardhas correctly depicted the situation as follows:

Whereas fewer than fifty writings on grammar, rhetoric, criticism, and linguistic theory have beenlisted for the first half of the eighteenth century, and still fewer for all the period before 1600, thepublications 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 alexicographer isolated from the trend. However, this is a matter to which little attention hasbeen paid. Even Starnes and Noyes, though extensively perusing the grammatical aspects ofJohnson’s Dictionary as mentioned above, seem to have been almost indifferent to thehistorical context.

Among other eighteenth-century grammarians, Robert Lowth and Joseph Priestley areknown as the forerunners of modern English grammarians. The former formulated variousrules for the language from a prescriptive viewpoint, basing himself on the ‘reason’ whichwas the spirit of the time. The latter, who was basically descriptive, laid special emphasison the use of the language. This difference between the two grammarians is reflected in thefollowing 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 indispensablyrequired of every one who undertakes to inform or entertain the public, that he should be able toexpress 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 ofany language is a collection of observations on the structure of it, and a system of rules for theproper use of it. (Priestley 1761:19)

To be more specific, Priestley criticized Lowth as follows in his second edition of theRudiments (1769):

Some persons, however, use the singular of this word [means], and would say, lest this meanshould fail, and Dr. Lowth pleads for it; but custom has so formed our ears, that they do not easilyadmit this form of the word, notwithstanding it is more agreeable to the general analogy of thelanguage. (Priestley 1769:61)

Dr. Lowth says, that grammar requires us to say, Whom do you think me to be? But inconversation 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 collatedwith Johnson’s Dictionary, respectively, it becomes obvious that both figures were stronglyinfluenced by the Dictionary, thus revealing Johnson’s considerable contribution to thedevelopment of English grammar. Daisuke Nagashima is one of a few authorities whoinvestigated Johnson’s Dictionary in relation to the history of English grammar. Based onthis investigation, he (1983:241-247) has discussed the relations between the Dictionaryand Lowth’s Short Introduction. According to Nagashima (1983:244), Lowth systematizedJohnson’s grammatical comments in the body of his Dictionary. In order to justify thisopinion, Nagashima (1983:241-244) has exemplified how Lowth introduced the contents ofJohnson’s usage notes into his Short Introduction. Nagashima (1983:243-244) has alsoproved that Lowth often made use of Johnson’s citations in his Dictionary, claiming thatJohnson’s Dictionary was instrumental in bringing about a turning point in the history ofEnglish grammar. Whether Nagashima’s investigation of Johnson’s Dictionary andLowth’s grammar has been sufficient or not to justify such a claim, it is to his credit that hehas discussed Johnson’s Dictionary in the historical context of the development of Englishgrammar. In a sense, however, it was natural for Lowth to refer to Johnson’s Dictionarybecause both aimed to stabilize the usage of English. In the following sub-sections, I willaim to elucidate how Johnson’s Dictionary exerted influence on Priestley whose view ofEnglish grammar was essentially opposed to Johnson’s; this analysis is an extension of theone which I published in 1984 and 1987 and was partially introduced into one ofNagashima’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 Rudimentsin 1761. This is his first grammar. In this edition, he referred to Johnson’s Dictionary asfollows:

It is not denied that use hath been made of other Grammars, and particularly of Mr. Johnson’s incompiling this: But it is apprehended, that there is so much that is properly original, both in thematerials and the disposition of them in this, as is more than sufficient to clear a work of such anature from the charge of plagiarism. (Priestley 1761:iv)

It is easily seen that Priestley did not name Johnson in a positive manner here; he evenseems to have referred to Johnson merely to avoid the censure of plagiarism. This showsthat Priestley at this stage did not highly appreciate Johnson’s knowledge of Englishgrammar. In this situation, it is virtually inconceivable that Johnson’s Dictionary exertednoteworthy influence on Priestley.

However, Priestley’s opinion about Johnson marked a significant change less than twoyears after that. In 1762, Priestley published his second grammar, A Course of Lectures onthe Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. At the beginning of this work, Priestleybestowed 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 thesenses in which all the words of the English language are used: and it is very possible, from littlemore than the examples he hath given from our best writers of the use of every word in everysense, to compose a grammar of all the varieties of manner in which words are used, both as totheir inflection and disposition, which, together with the dictionary, would be a complete systemof our language as now used. (Priestley 1762:218)

This time, Johnson’s Dictionary was an indispensable reference book for Priestley todevelop his view of English grammar. It is almost certain that this notable change ofPriestley’s opinion about Johnson was brought about by the fact that his concern shiftedfrom one part of Johnson’s Dictionary to the other. Evidently, the passage from the Courseof Lectures above refers to the body of Johnson’s Dictionary. At the stage of the firstedition 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 thisedition, Priestley stated:

I must not conclude this preface, without making my acknowledgements to Mr. Johnson, whoseadmirable dictionary has been of the greatest use to me in the study of our language. It is a pity hehad 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 thefirst sentence in this passage refers to the body of Johnson’s Dictionary and the secondsentence to the “Grammar” attached to the Dictionary; Priestley reviewed each of themseverally, and it is not that he said that Johnson’s Dictionary was totally deficient ingrammatical information. However, James Sledd and Gwin Kolb (1955:178) have quotedthe 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 acommonplace. As Priestley said, moreover, the weakness of Johnson’s grammar was cause for realregret; for Johnson might have commanded public attention at the very moment when the study ofEnglish was becoming scholastically respectable. (Sledd and Kolb 1955:178)

In this claim, Sledd and Kolb have manifestly associated the second sentence in Priestley’spassage with Johnson’s knowledge about English grammar. It can hardly be thought thatSledd 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 indiscussing usage in the language; he took objection to Johnson 2 times and approved of him3 times. Specifically, Priestley criticized Johnson to clarify his unique view of aconjunctive 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 languageseems 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 usedby 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 illobeyed, 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 onlesser, Johnson said:

A barbarous corruption of less, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparatives iner; 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. SterlingLeonard (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 oftenregarded Johnson as a representative of a group of grammarians whose view of the wordwas opposite to his.

With regard to Priestley’s approval of Johnson’s opinions, it concerns three points: theuse of a grammatical term, syllables and the usage of should. I will discuss each of thepoints below in this order.

Firstly, as to the use of a grammatical term, Priestley gave preference to Johnson’soblique case over Lowth’s objective case as follows:

I prefer the term oblique case of Dr. Johnson to objective case, which Dr. Lowth uses. [...] Nowthe objective case can only stand for the accusative, in which the object of an affirmative sentenceis put; but oblique comprehends other relations, and other cases, in which this form of the pronounis 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 aharshness in the pronunciation. It is, therefore, usual to compare them in the same manner asPolysyllables, without any change of termination. Of these, Mr. Johnson has given us thefollowing 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; ined, 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 asskinny; 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 anyother particle expressing uncertainty, is prefixed to it. I should go, means I ought to go; but if Ishould 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’sDictionary. In the entry on should, Johnson had explained the usage of the word asfollows:

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 highlyimportant 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 makingmention of his name. In the entry on obey (v.a.) in his Dictionary, Johnson explained theuse 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 ofMilton’s latinisms; but it is frequent in old writers; when we borrowed the French word weborrowed 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 theRudiments together with the citations like this:

55

Agreeably to the Latin and French idioms, the preposition to is sometimes used in conjunctionwith such words as, in those languages, govern the dative case; but this construction does not seemto suit the English language. His servants ye are, to whom ye obey. Romans. And to their general’svice 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 wasinevitably obscured by Lowth’s. Nowadays, however, Priestley is generally regarded as aforerunner of descriptive grammarians. Albert Baugh has commented on Priestley asfollows:

One must come down almost to our own day to find an attitude so tolerant and so liberal. And thedoctrine of usage is so fundamental to all sound discussion of linguistic matters that it is importantto 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 eighteenthcentury, 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, consultingJohnson’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 hisDictionary against the backdrop of fiery anti-English sentiment of the American peopleright after American Independence. As I pointed out at the end of Section 1.3, this view isthought to have seriously obscured the linguistic aspects of the Dictionary and the historicalsignificance 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 fewinstances, James Murray (1900:43) claimed in 1900 that Webster “was fired with the ideathat America ought to have a dictionary of its own form of English, independent of Britishusage”. Kemp Malone (1925:28) stated that “His labors [Webster’s tasks for compiling hisDictionary] were destined to extend over more than twenty years, but never once did helose sight of this patriotic purpose”. Albert Baugh (2002:369) remarked that “Webster wasa patriot who carried his sentiment from questions of political and social organization overinto matters of language”. It has been usual for such authorities to refer to the followingpassage 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 anAmerican Dictionary of the English Language; for, although the body of the language is the sameas 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 ofideas, 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’sDictionary is adorned with the word ‘American’: An American Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage. 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 thetitle of Webster’s Dictionary is sufficient to prove the correctness of their perspective. Afew authorities have taken objection to the prevailing perspective based on convincinghistorical facts. Richard Rollins is one of them. He has pointed out Webster’s pro-Britishattitude:

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 tiesthat bind the two nations together; I hope the works I have executed will manifest to the Britishnation 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 betweenWebster’s Dictionary and his preparatory work for it, the Compendious Dictionary of theEnglish Language (1806), Rollins has made the following comments:

Webster himself indicated that his view had changed immensely. “It is not only important, but, ina degree necessary,” he said in the opening pages, “that the people of this country, should have anAmerican Dictionary of the English language.” Notice that he did not advocate the developmentof 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 furtherexplained his position, noting that the body of the language was basically the same as that ofEngland. He added a significant statement: “it is desirable to perpetuate that sameness.” [...] Halfa century earlier he had despised England and all that it stood for. Now he told the queen that hehoped his dictionary might furnish evidence that the “genuine descendants of English ancestorsborn on the west of the Atlantic, have not forgotten either the land or the language of theirfathers.” (Rollins 1980:126-127)

Rollins’s interpretation of the passage can be regarded as coinciding with the contents ofWebster’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 hadchanged 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 ofthis country, even lower than the distorted representations of foreign reviewers; whose venerationfor trans-atlantic authors leads them to hold American writers in unmerited contempt; from suchmen 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 decidethe 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 theirwritings or by their science; but it is with pride and satisfaction, that I can place them, asauthorities, 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 becamemoderated after 1806. What is significant about Rollins is that he was aware of the changein Webster’s thought. This is a point which has hardly been reflected in the accounts of theauthorities of the prevailing perspective. Malone (1925:26-30) has quoted various passagesfrom Webster’s writings with the attempt to prove the relations between his anti-Englishsentiment 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 inWebster’s thought similarly to Rollins, has pointed out a notable fact:

Webster’s linguistic outlook continually underwent an evolution throughout his long life, ingeneral in the direction of conservatism. It is fascinating to watch the changes as they graduallytook 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 wascompleted, twenty-eight years later, it bore the title AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THEENGLISH LANGUAGE. (Read 1986a:199)

When observed thus, Webster can hardly be thought to have compiled his Dictionarymotivated by anti-English sentiment; Webster’s Dictionary can no longer be regarded as aproduct 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 Webstercompiled his Dictionary with the intention of developing an American English independentof British English. However, it has to be noted that Webster’s Dictionary acquiredpopularity in England rather than in America. Richard Rollins has pointed out the followingfact:

58

The American Dictionary was perfectly acceptable in England. The first edition of 2,500 copieswas 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 studyof English and that Webster did not make much effort to develop the American style ofEnglish by compiling his Dictionary. To what extent, however, is Webster’s DictionaryAmerican? One way to find an answer to this question is to analyse Webster’s treatment ofAmericanisms. However, this is a matter which has often caused controversy. On the onehand, some authorities have assumed that Webster’s Dictionary contains a considerablenumber of Americanisms. For example, Morton Benson (1986:7) has claimed that “Onenoteworthy feature of Webster’s work was his inclusion of many Americanisms, Britishdictionaries having paid scant attention to such forms”. Saying thus, Benson (1986:7) citedsome examples of Americanisms in Webster’s Dictionary: caribou, hickory, moccasin,moose, squash, succotash, tomahawk and wigwam. Herbert Morton (1994:44) also believedthat Webster made efforts to include Americanisms in his Dictionary: “Webster took pridein the introduction of Americanisms – new words and new senses of old words that hadarisen to meet the language needs of the new nation”. On the other hand, some authoritieshave been dubious of Webster’s treatment of Americanisms. Joseph Friend (1967:49) hasasserted, “An examination of the Americanisms included in the book [Webster’sDictionary] shows that [...] his coverage is very far from thorough, and his omissions aresometimes hard to account for”. Joseph Reed (1962:101) has remarked that “There werefew genuine Americanisms” in Webster’s Dictionary.

Whether Americanisms in Webster’s Dictionary are large or small in number depends onthe subjectivity of the viewers. Additionally, the definite number of Americanisms inWebster’s Dictionary is yet to be determined. For these reasons, if we want to knowsomething about Webster’s collection of the Americanisms, it becomes necessary to readhis 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 tothe condition and institutions of the people in these states, and the people of England must look toan 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 ofAmericanisms. He, on the other hand, said in the “Introduction” to the Dictionary asfollows:

As to Americanisms, so called, I have not been able to find many words, in respectable use, whichcan be so denominated. These I have admitted and noted as peculiar to this country. I have fullyascertained that most of the new words charged to the coinage of this country, were first used inEngland. (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 notionof 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 inAmericanisms.

The first dictionary of Americanisms is John Pickering’s Vocabulary, or Collection ofWords and Phrases Which Have Been Supposed to be Peculiar to the United States ofAmerica. It was published in 1816, ten years before Webster’s Dictionary. According toJames Smith (1979:49), the entry words listed in this dictionary are actually “not ‘peculiarto the United States’”. This is the only dictionary of Americanisms during Webster’slifetime. The second one was published more than thirty years after Pickering’s. It is JohnBarlett’s Dictionary of Americanism (1848). Margaret Bryant (Thornton 1962:xiii) hascommented on the dictionary that it “showed that Pickering’s attitude had now beenreplaced by an interest in dialect for its own sake.” In 1889, John S. Farmer published thebook Americanism Old and New. Then, in 1912, Richard Thornton laid the foundation forthe scientific study of Americanisms with his epoch-making American Glossary, which wasto become one of indispensable reference books for Sir William Craigie and James Hulbertin compiling their renowned Dictionary of American English on Historical Principles(1944). Thornton collected Americanisms based on the following definitions:

I Forms of speech now obsolete or provincial in England, which survive in the U.S.II Words and phrases of distinctly American originIII Nouns which indicate quadrupeds, birds, trees, articles of food, & c., that are distinctly

AmericanIV Names of persons and classes of persons, and of placesV Words which have assumed a new meaningVI 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 ofAmericanism became clearly conceptualized in this way.

Since the dictionaries of Americanisms developed as described above, it would bealmost unreasonable to criticize Webster for his imperfect treatment of the words in hisDictionary. There was obviously a historical limitation for Webster to treat them in asatisfactory way; Webster’s treatment of Americanisms should not be interpreted from ourmodern linguistic viewpoint as Friend and Reed have done. However, in order to clarifyWebster’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 definitionV; and Webster’s expressions in the “Introduction” to Thornton’s definitions II and III. Inthe “Preface”, Webster remarked that words had to be defined so that they areaccommodated to the condition of the American people. In the “Introduction”, he said hehad not been able to find many words of American origin. That is, he is observed to havedistinguished 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 thanthe words of American origin themselves.

Still, however, it cannot be said that Webster laid particular emphasis on Americansenses. Adding information irrelevant to America, Webster was often highly objective inthe 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 shillingsand sixpence sterling. The dollar seems to have been originally a German coin, and in differentparts of Germany, the name is given to coins of different value.

In the second example here, Webster fairly correctly estimated the origin of dollar. TheOED reads that dollar is “The English name for the German thaler, a large silver coin, ofvarying value, current in the German states from the sixteenth century” with the descriptionthat the word was introduced into English in 1553.

Webster’s treatment of Americanisms indicates that his Dictionary is not so American asthe 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 isusually 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 changein 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 Americanpractice 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 formswhich 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, Wellsconcluded that:

A more balanced assessment of Webster’s influence on American orthography, then, would givehim some credit for settling a number of points of divided usage, but would hesitate to attribute tohim very much greater shaping influence on the language. (Wells 1973:63)

Wells’s opinion is convincing, especially when his passages from historic documents arereferred 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 aswhen a word form “had been from time immemorial, the established orthography, whyunsettle the practice?” (1828: no. pag. [30th in the “Introduction”]) and “I have determinedto 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 Englishso that it might conform to the pronunciation before 1807, the year when he begancompiling 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 whichhad already been common among the Americans at his time, whether he might have beeninvolved in the spelling or not, with a conservative attitude; this means that Webster caneven be regarded as having tried to stop further changes in spelling, though admittingprevailing customs in the language.

3.3.4 Dictionaries in Demand among Americansduring the Nineteenth Century

After all, Webster’s Dictionary can hardly be regarded as a product of the atmosphere ofanti-British sentiment.

In what way, then, did his Dictionary have relevance to the history of America? In orderto obtain an answer to this question, it is necessary to know what aspects of the Dictionaryattracted the attention of the American people in the nineteenth century. Since mostlexicographers have compiled their dictionaries responding to the demands of their times,the relations between Webster’s Dictionary and his time can be found through theinvestigation 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 highlysuggestive information. Worcester was a lexicographer who published the ComprehensivePronouncing and Explanatory Dictionary of the English Language (1830), the Universaland Critical Dictionary of the English Language (1846) and the Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage (1860) after Webster’s Dictionary. In rivalry with these dictionaries, Websterpublished a revised edition of his Dictionary in 1841. This edition was followed by thethird, fourth and fifth editions in 1847, 1859 and 1864, respectively; the third and fourtheditions were edited by Chauncey Goodrich, a successor of Webster’s, and the fifth by alexicographer named Noah Porter. With regard to the details of the ‘war’, they have beenexpounded by Joseph Friend (1967:82-103), but Charlton Laird has told its atmosphere inbrief:

[...] 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 passengerconductor who would call out, going to Worcester, Massachusetts, “Worcester! Worcester! Allchange 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 oneafter another. However, these newly added features were not decisive factors for the victoryof Webster’s camp. Rather, it was the original aspects of the Dictionary almost leftuntouched 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 andprofessors in the Middle West between the 1840’s and 1860’s. These letters vividly showhow Americans responded to the ‘war’, as well as reasons for the victory of Webster’scamp. 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 lineshould 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 wholeAmerican 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 itgenerally 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, anddeserves 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 issuingearly 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 aneffort 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 landwhere 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 languagethis work must be largely disseminated among the people, and for that purpose, no better modecould be devised than its introduction into our common school. Every school house should have acopy 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 phrasesindicate that Americans at that time showed a keen interest in information on Englishgrammar and usage. Besides, all of the 6 letters above recommended the use of thedictionaries in Webster’s camp at schools or home. This means that Webster’s Dictionarywas 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 itsinformation on English grammar and usage, but also in one other aspect. It is the abundanceof biblical citations. In order to elucidate the point, reference to Ellwood Cubberley’sReadings in the History of Education (1920), a collection of historical documents onAmerican education in its early period, is beneficial. Cubberley was an American educatorand pioneer writer on the history of American education; he served as president ofVincennes 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 thecontents of Cubberley’s Readings as a basis, occasionally pointing out the historical factswhich 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 attachedspecial importance to language and religious education. Pyles (1954:65) has cited the factthat the Puritan church in America issued an order in 1647 requiring that everyMassachusetts town of fifty or more householders should appoint an instructor to teach allchildren to read and write. This type of requirement became intensified as the number ofimmigrants increased. As to the situation at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Pyleshas also pointed out the following fact:

The need for an unwavering line setting off right from wrong was just as urgent in the sphere oflanguage as in that of morals. It is little wonder, when one considers the social, moral, andeconomic background of the most influential of our earliest settlers, that the linguistic earnestnessof the prescriptive grammarians should have met with such enthusiasm and sympathy on theseshores. (Pyles 1954:66)

Between 1790 and 1815, educational facilities termed ‘reading schools’ by the educators atthe time were established one after another in Boston. The purpose of the facilities indicatesthat Americans’ requirements for language and religious education became even moreintensified. It is teaching reading, spelling, pronunciation, elocution and grammar to youngboys and girls. These schools partially replaced Latin schools which had been establishedby then for high education. This is what William Fowle (Cubberley 1920:545), then aschool teacher, wrote at that time; among educational historians, his writings have generallybeen regarded as excellent for knowledge about schools in Boston from the end of theeighteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth. It is significant that the sameliterature (Cubberley 1920:545) also shows that it was compulsory for every pupil atreading schools to read the Bible and study spelling and grammar with the textbookswritten by none other than Webster.

While language and religious education was being conducted in this way in Boston, aneducational society was formed in New York at the beginning of the 1800’s. The name ofthe 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 ofsuch 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 wasin 1805. In this appeal, the members of the society (Cubberley 1920:553), pointing outmoral problems caused by immigrants, asserted that “it will be a primary object, withoutobserving the peculiar forms of any religious Society, to inculcate the sublime truths ofreligion and morality contained in the Holy Scriptures”.

In 1820, the schools of Providence in Rhode Island adopted a few regulations foreducational methods: “The Regulations for the Instruction and Government of the PublickSchools in the Town of Providence”. A passage from the regulations clearly shows thatthey 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, theuse of Capital letters and Punctuation, Writing, English Grammar & Arithmetick.

64

The Pronunciation shall be uniform in the several schools & the standard shall be the CriticalPronouncing Dictionary of John Walker.

The following Books, and none others, shall be used in the several schools, viz: Alden’sSpelling Book, first & second part, New Testament, American Preceptor, Murray’s Sequel to theEnglish Reader, Murray’s Abridgement of English Grammar and Dabol’s Arithmetick. (Cubberley1920:548)

Incidentally, this passage also shows the spread of the grammars of Murray, Webster’sformidable antagonist in an argument on grammatical theories; a feud between Webster andMurray is expounded throughout Makoto Ikeda’s work (1999).

As observed thus far, the early history of America was inextricably related to languageand 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 agrammarian, 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 shouldhave had to invent him.” There is little wonder if his Dictionary is abundant in linguisticinformation and biblical citations as it actually is; Webster’s Dictionary can be called amirror of the time in this respect.

However, this does not mean that Webster was always a grammarian and a moralist half-and-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 thisas enthusiastically as Johnson. Besides, in numerous cases, he supplied citations from theBible to illustrate his view of English usage and grammar. From this viewpoint, Webstercan be said to have made use of the atmosphere of religious education for the benefit ofteaching English to the people in America. This point will be examined in detail in Section4.5 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 theeducational situation in America. However, Webster’s was not the first dictionary that hasclose relevance to the situation. That is, there is historical continuity between Webster’sDictionary and its preceding English dictionaries in America. I will discuss the matterbelow 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 theeighteenth century. Americans then used English dictionaries of British origin whichconformed to their needs. In this situation, two dictionaries gained especially highpopularity. One is William Johnston’s Pronouncing and Spelling Dictionary (1764). Thisdictionary contains material entitled “Catalogue of Words of Similar Sounds, but ofDifferent Spelling and Significations”. According to Krapp (1925:vol. 2, 352), it wasbecause of this material that the dictionary enjoyed such popularity. The other Englishdictionary 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 thelexicographer 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 editionwas adding encyclopaedic material which included the explanation of Scriptural propernames and the names of rivers and mountains. Worcester, however, did not forget to addmaterial for the explanation of a system of pronunciation and English grammar. Thepopularity of Johnston’s Dictionary and Perry’s Dictionary revised by Worcester indicateshow much Americans during the eighteenth century expected dictionaries to provideinformation on English spelling, pronunciation and grammar. At the beginning of thenineteenth century, another dictionary of English origin was revised by an American. It isStephen Jones’s version of Thomas Sheridan’s General Pronouncing and ExplanatoryDictionary 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 wasissued 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 inthe history of American lexicography. In this year, the first English dictionary of Americanorigin came to be published. It was a School Dictionary published by a lexicographernamed Samuel Johnson, Jr. [Johnson Jr. hereafter], coincidentally the same name as ‘Dr.Johnson’ in England. This dictionary is hardly available today; Friend (1967:105) haspointed out that only two copies of it were extant as of 1967. It is, however, possible toobtain 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 hisSchool Dictionary; they are, Gibson has said, types of words which are not obsolete norvery familiar. Gibson (1936:286-287) also quoted Johnson Jr.’s own statement concerningthe purpose of the dictionary: “The design of it is to furnish schools with a dictionary whichwill 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 atschools. Whether Gibson’s and Krapp’s observations may be exactly in accord or not withthe facts of the dictionary, its title and purpose strongly suggest that the first Englishdictionary of American origin was in close contact with the context of language educationat 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 theeighteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth. His Dictionary, therefore, is notentirely 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 comparedwith that of Johnson’s Dictionary. Both dictionaries have in common that they deal withEnglish grammar and usage in detail. However, there are fundamental differences betweenthe two in respect of their historical contexts.

In the case of Johnson’s Dictionary, it was published in response to the requirement forfixing the language. This means that Johnson compiled his Dictionary almost exclusivelyfor 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 toimprove 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 consideredthat works of that kind [Johnson’s Dictionary] are by no means necessary to the greaternumber of readers”.

Another difference between the two dictionaries is found from the viewpoint of thecontinuity of the lexicographical tradition. Johnson’s Dictionary is almost withoutprecedent in terms of its purpose; few English lexicographrs before Johnson had attemptedto compile a dictionary to fix the language. In contrast to this, Webster’s Dictionary hasclose relations with some of its preceding dictionaries in America; Webster is thought tohave based himself on the tradition of American lexicography and the practice of trying toimprove the English used by the American public. And Webster was almost indifferent tothe 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 ofEnglish grammar and usage as revealed in their dictionaries are essentially different fromeach other, and that the differences will be reflected in their use of verbal examples.

4: Johnson's and Webster's Usual Practicesin 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 ofsources of citations from a historical viewpoint:

So far have I been from any care to grace my pages with modern decorations, that I havestudiously 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 falserefinement and declension, I have been cautious lest my zeal for antiquity might drive me intotimes too remote, and croud my book with words now no longer understood. I have fixed Sidney’swork for the boundary, beyond which I make few excursions. From the authours which rose in thetime 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 tocompile the Dictionary. If he had rigidly observed the principles during the compilation ofthe Dictionary, the major portion of his citations would have been comprised of phrasesand 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 theprinciples. In his Dictionary, Johnson provided 1,310 entries on words beginning with theletter 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 ofthese citations seems to imply that the reality of Johnson’s practice of supplying citationsdoes not accord with his principles stated in the “Preface”. The following table shows theresults of the investigation; the figures here indicate the number of citations from relevantsources.

Table 1: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter Lin 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 Lin 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 theKing and theMiller”

1

Locke 133 Fairfax 14 Derham 6 Smart 1

Spenser 130 Quincy 13 Creech 6 Skinner 1

Swift 114 King Charles 13 Cranshaw 6 SeaDictionary

1

Arbuthnot 65 Howell 13 Cleaveland 6 ScotchProverb

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 OxfordReasonsagainstthe Covenant

1

South 48 Hayward 12 Ascham 5 Norris 1

Brown 42 Daniel 12 Suckling 4 Muschenbroek 1

Boyle 40 Tusser 11 Hakewill 4 Littleton 1

Atterbury 31 Sandy 11 Garth 4 Keil 1

Mortimer 29 Roscommon 11 Evelyn 4 Johnson 1

Denham 29 Newton 11 Broome 4 Introductionto 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

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 Epitaphon Vanbrugh

1

69

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

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Wotton 22 Moxon 9 CommonPrayer 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 hisDictionary, but its credibility becomes ensured when it is compared with other analyses ofthe same kind. That is, at least two authorities on Johnson’s Dictionary made statisticalanalyses 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 detailedaccount of it. According to Stenberg (1944:203), Freed analysed all sources of Johnson’scitations supplied in the first volume of his Dictionary. Stenberg (1944:203) has shown thefigures Freed mentioned concerning all authors from whom Johnson quoted more than 500times: “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 aboutJohnson’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 theletter M. Based on the results of this study, Read (1986b:37) has shown the percentages ofthe 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”. WhenFreed’s analysis and Read’s are compared, they show little difference in indicatingJohnson’s tendencies in his selection of sources. And the tendencies are also observable inmy analysis. That is, each of the three analyses indicates that Johnson quoted fromShakespeare exceedingly frequently, and from Dryden in second-order frequency; then, thefrequencies of quotation from John Milton, Francis Bacon, Addison, Pope, EdmundSpenser, Swift, Sidney and the Bible follow after them. There is a little difference amongthe 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’sin fifth-order frequency. Nevertheless, it is clear that Johnson frequently quoted from theBible anyway. It can now be said that these similarities among the three analyses assure thesafety 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 himselfstated in the “Preface”. In order to clarify the point in detail, it is helpful to refer to somemisconceptions among authorities. It is common knowledge that Johnson wrote his“Preface” after he finalized the body of the Dictionary. For this reason, quite a fewauthorities have taken it for granted that Johnson almost always observed the principlesthroughout his engagement with the compilation of the Dictionary. In this regard, KikuoYamakawa (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 saidthat 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 Addisonin sixth-order frequency. In consequence, Johnson quoted from the three authors morefrequently than some authors before the Restoration.

Yamakawa’s misunderstanding concerns the lower limit of the period which Johnsonmentioned in relation to his selection of sources of citations. In contrast to this, DavidFleeman, a renowned Johnsonian, had an erroneous idea concerning the upper limit of theperiod. 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 hehad not much access to early forms of English”; more specifically, he (1984:38) alsoclaimed that “The books he [Johnson] used were limited to the period from Shakespeare toJohnson himself”. This conception should be corrected. As a matter of fact, Johnson quotedfrom Spenser (b.1552?-d.1599) in ninth-order frequency; Johnson quoted from him morefrequently than many authors after Shakespeare (b.1564-d.1616). Furthermore, Johnsoneven quoted from Geoffrey Chaucer (b.1340?-d.1400?), though he did not perform this inthe L’s. For instance, in the entries on quaint, rote and tackle, Johnson supplied followingcitations, 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 andthere one can find references to Middle English writers [in Johnson’s Dictionary]”, Readclarified 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 islinguistically motivated for the purpose of indicating changes in the senses and usage ofwords, will be seen in Section 8.1.2, for instance, through his use of citations fromChaucer.)

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 to1660.” 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’sand 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 notonly by the two passages in the “Preface” which were mentioned in the previous sub-section. There is another passage in the “Preface” which is liable to fortify themisconceptions. The passage runs as follows:

If the language of theology were extracted from Hooker and the translation of the Bible; the termsof natural knowledge from Bacon, the phrases of policy, war, and navigation from Raleigh; thedialect of poetry and fiction from Spenser and Sidney, and the diction of common life fromShakespeare, few ideas would be lost to mankind, for want of English words, in which they mightbe expressed. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 62) in the “Preface”])

The perusal of this passage reveals that Johnson here substantially referred not to theselection of sources of citations but to the selection of entry-words; in this passage, hementioned the ‘terms’ of natural knowledge, the ‘dialect’ of poetry and fiction, etc., whichconcern entry-words rather than citations. This passage is in no way a bibliography ofJohnson’s citations. However, the six authors mentioned in it all published their worksbetween Sidney’s time and the 1650’s. Their dates indicate it; Richard Hooker’s dates arefrom 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 saidthat he had endeavoured to collect verbal examples from literature at that time. For thisreason, the passage has often been associated with Johnson’s selection of sources ofcitations. For instance, Tetsuro Hayashi, referring to the six authors, has given acommentary on the passage as follows:

Needless to say, these authors are only a limited number of authorities which Johnson mostfrequently quoted in his Dictionary. However, they are apparently the most typical sources fromwhich an abundance of most genuine, polite, elegant diction in the English language could havebeen drawn in his time. (Hayashi 1978:105)

The fact is that the six authors were not necessarily ‘typical sources’ for Johnson to quotefrom. Certainly, Johnson quoted frequently from Shakespeare and the Bible, which werementioned in the passage from the “Preface”. At the same time, however, Johnson oftenquoted 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 fromRaleigh, one of the six authors. The citations from Raleigh are far smaller in number thanthose 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 fromJohn Arbuthnot (b.1667-d.1735), 60 from Matthew Prior (b.1664-d.1721), 42 from SirThomas 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 RichardBentley (b.1662-d.1724) and 20 from John Gay (b.1685-d.1732). Freed’s and Read’sanalyses also do not indicate that Raleigh is a source of high frequency in Johnson’scitations.

4.1.3 A Solution to the Apparent Contradiction

In this way, in his selection of sources of citations, Johnson’s practice apparently did notaccord with his principles. For the purpose of collecting phrases and sentences to besupplied in his Dictionary, Johnson actually ranged over literature more extensively thangenerally thought. Gwin Kolb and Ruth Kolb were partially aware of this. When theypointed out the fact, the Kolbs (1972:67) emphatically remarked that “we should stress thepatent fact that, his [Johnson’s] remark in the Preface notwithstanding, he did not alwaysdrink deep from ‘the wells of English undefiled’ ”. However, their emphasis was notsufficient. It is not accurate to think that Johnson ‘did not always’ quote from the authorsbetween Sidney’s time and the 1650’s; rather, he supplied an abundance of citations fromauthors in and after the 1660’s. Edward McAdam and George Milne appear to have beenprudent when they stated that:

[Johnson] decided to begin with Sir Philip Sidney (about 1580) and to end just before hiscontemporaries. He modified this a little by using Chaucer occasionally, and a few of his ownfriends, 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. Thisinterpretation, however, does not seem to be helpful to solve the problematic discrepancybetween Johnson’s principles stated in the “Preface” and his practice.

In this way, Johnson even seems to have disregarded his principles in the practice ofsupplying citations. Why, then, did he mention the period between Sidney’s time and the1650’s in relation to his selection of sources of citations? To answer this question, thefollowing statement by Noel Osselton is highly suggestive:

Johnson’s own definition of the chronological limits [...] had to do especially with the literaryfunction 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 andappropriate. 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 rosein the time of Elizabeth, a speech might be formed adequate to all the purposes of use andelegance”. Suppose that Johnson formulated the principles mainly from his literaryviewpoint, it becomes possible to resolve the apparent contradiction. That is, the reasonwhy he actually quoted frequently from the authors before Sidney’s time and after the1650’s can be regarded thus: Johnson did not cling to his literary preference in the practiceof 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 “assupplements to his own definitions”. This claim is partially justified. They tried to provetheir 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 ofthe mind, whereby we infer one proposition from two or more propositions premised. [...] Watts’sLogick.” (G. & R. Kolb 1972:64-65)

Actually, however, their claim is not sufficiently convincing. Johnson occasionally suppliedcitations in a more radical way than the Kolbs conceived. There are considerable number ofentries and sub-entries in the Dictionary in which Johnson supplied citations as substitutesfor definitions without commenting on entry-words in his words. Moreover, quite a few ofthese citations do not even include relevant entry-words in them. This is a point which theKolbs 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 vesselgenerally 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 littlesilver. Woodward’s Metallick Fossils.

Additionally, Johnson sometimes supplied more than one citation in an entry or sub-entryto 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 thefirst 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 larboardis not included. As to the second and third citations, they can be regarded as supplements tothe 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 apprehensionsKeep leets and law-days, and in sessions sitWith 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, andcitations 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 fordefinitions? This is a point to which little attention has been paid until today, but itconcerns one of the essential aspects of Johnson’s citations: the relations between citationsand definitions. Except for citations which can be regarded as supplements, such as thesecond and third ones in the entries on leap-year, larboard and leet, Johnson replaced hisdefinitions by citations in 75 entries within the range of the L’s in his Dictionary. Thesecitations are taken from 16 sources in total. The following table shows the situation indetail; the figures indicate the number of citations from relevant sources.

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

Sources Freq. Entry-wordsAddison 1 larch (n.s.)Ainsworth 4 life-everlasting (---), limpet (n.s), limmer (n.s.), lourge

(n.s.)Bailey 1 lamentine (n.s.)Calmet 1 locust (n.s.)Carew 1 lestercock (n.s)

75

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

Sources Freq. Entry-words

Cowell 2 leet (n.s), legacy (n.s.)Hanmer 6 lavolta (n.s.), leash (n.s.), lech (v.a.), linstock (n.s.),

loggats (n.s.), lush (adj.)Harris 5 larboard (n.s.), latches (n.s.), leap-year (n.s.), logarithms

(n.s.), loxodromick (n.s.)Hill 7 labdanum (n.s.), lac (n.s.), lapis lazuli (---), lead (n.s.),

lentisck (n.s.), litharge (n.s.), logwood (n.s.)Miller 17 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.)

Peacham 1 lampblack (n.s.)Skinner 1 loom (v.n.)Quincy 2 leucophlegmatick (adj.), ligament (n.s.)Spenser 2 lustless (adj.), lyeke (adj.)Walton 1 loach (n.s.)Woodward 1 lazuli (n.s.)Dictionaries 22 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. WhenJohnson substituted his citations for definitions, he almost always did this in entries ontechnical terms, names of animals and plants, etc. In other words, most of the entries are onencyclopaedic words. Another fact concerns the types of sources. We confirmed in Sections4.1.1 and 4.1.2 that Johnson generally quoted from authors of literary works. However, inthe 16 sources shown in the table, the names of the authors are hardly seen; he quotedmerely one or two times from the authors. Instead, it is seen here that Johnson quotedfrequently from such authors as Sir Thomas Hanmer, a politician, Harris, a lexicographer ofan encyclopaedic dictionary, John Hill, a natural scientist, and Philip Miller, a botanist.Besides, this table indicates that Johnson extracted 22 sentences or phrases from otherdictionaries.

Concerning Johnson’s practice of supplying citations, David Micklethwait, basically anauthority on Webster’s Dictionary, has recognized that Johnson’s citations can be dividedinto two types:

Johnson generally gave single names to identify his authorities, but those names were of two quitedifferent types. Some were the authority for definitions that had been copied from other referencebooks, 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 authoritiesfor usage, being the authors of his quotations. (Micklethwait 2000:178)

This statement can be regarded as correct in principle. When Johnson substituted citationsfor definitions, he usually did this from an encyclopaedic viewpoint irrelevantly to Englishliterature 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 citationsin English dictionaries. Allen Read (1986b:41) has claimed that “the giving of quotationswas a minor part of his work [Webster’s Dictionary]”. In the same way, DaisukeNagashima (1974:109) has said that Webster almost totally disregarded the value ofcitations in dictionaries. Both of them expressed their opinions based on the followingstatement 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 havebeen a very great amount, has been taken from the purchasers for what is entirely useless. (Boulton1971:136)

Joseph Friend (1967:42) has also remarked that “Obviously Webster looked uponquotations as [...] inessential”. This opinion is based on Webster’s own words quotedbelow:

One of the most objectionable parts of Johnson’s Dictionary, in my opinion, is the great number ofpassages cited from authors, to exemplify his definitions. Most English words are so familiarly andperfectly understood, and the sense of them so little liable to be called in question, that they maybe 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. Theseopinions can apparently be justified by the fact that the number of citations in Webster’sDictionary is approximate one sixth of that in Johnson’s. However, a close analysis ofWebster’s selection of sources of citations proves that the opinions are not in accord withthe 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 theL’s in his Dictionary; the figures here indicate the number of citations from relevantsources.

77

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

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Bible 182 Gray 3 Walsh 1 Feltham 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 selectionof citations and his favourite style of English.

Firstly, concerning his careful selection of citations, the total number of citationsindicated in the table becomes 632. This signifies that he supplied quite a small number ofcitations when compared with Johnson. Webster provided 2,024 entries in the L’s in hisDictionary. 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; thatis, Johnson allocated 3.0 citations per entry within this range. However, this does not meanthat Webster was indifferent to the value of citations. This becomes clear when we focusour attention on his approach to selecting the sources of his citations. Table 3 also indicatesthat Webster quoted from approximate 100 sources; these are assumed to have been enoughfor Webster to supply a larger number of citations than he did. Actually, however, hequoted only one or two times each from most of these sources, which is thought to be atrace of Webster’s careful selection of citations. This signifies that Webster was critical notabout 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 notabsolutely necessary, except in cases where the signification is a deviation from the plain literalsense, a particular application of the term; or in a case, where the sense of the word may bedoubtful, 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, andcited 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 someexplanation. Against Webster’s usual practice to quote only one or two times from onesource, there are some sources from which Webster quoted frequently. Especially, hequoted 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 matterof fact, these nine sources are almost identical with the top nine from which Johnsonfrequently quoted in his Dictionary. That is, Johnson quoted especially frequently fromShakespeare, Dryden, the Bible, Milton, Bacon, Addison, Pope, Locke and Spenser in thisorder in the L’s in his Dictionary. This is not a coincidence. One reason for thisphenomenon is that Webster made use of Johnson’s citations. In the “Introduction” to hisDictionary, Webster stated:

In general, I have illustrated the significations of words, and proved them to be legitimate, by ashort passage from some respectable authors, often abridged from the whole passage cited byJohnson. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])

In this situation, it is natural that Johnson’s practice of supplying citations was reflected inWebster’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 ofhigh frequency in Webster’s Dictionary are taken from the literature between the beginningof the Restoration and Johnson’s time. This literature reflects the language to whichWebster attached special importance. He stated:

The language of Addison, Johnson, and other distinguished writers of the last century, in the use ofthe 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 tomake 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! (Webster1828: n. pag. [46th in the “Introduction”])

In these statements, Webster’s favourite style of English is clearly revealed. At the stage of1807, Webster harshly criticized Johnson, referring to Johnson’s selection of sources ofcitations:

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 hisvocabulary, are selected from writers of the 17th century, who, though well versed in the learnedlanguages, 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 basicallybeen 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, atthe stage of 1807 Webster misunderstood Johnson’s selection of sources of citations. Thatis, 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 statementsin the “Preface” to his Dictionary to the effect that Johnson endeavoured to collect verbalexamples from the literature between Sidney’s time to the 1650’s. With the exception ofDryden and a few other authors, the language of authors before and in the 17th century wasbasically unpleasant for Webster. According to James Boulton (1971:130), Webster said in1807 that “Indeed some writers of age and judgement are led by Johnson’s authority to theuse of words which are not English, and which give their style an air of pedantry andobscurity; 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 lasteduntil 1828. In the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, Webster (1828: n. pag. [45th]) criticizedJohnson’s Dictionary in detail beginning with the phrase “the principal faults in Johnson’sDictionary are [...]”. In this criticism, however, Webster did not mention Johnson’sselection of sources of citations. He is thought to have noticed sometime after 1807 thatJohnson actually had not quoted so frequently from authors before the Restoration.Concerning Webster’s frequent quotation from Shakespeare and Bacon, the authors in thelatter half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th, it is regarded as the reflectionsof Johnson’s tendency in supplying citations. There is, however, a slight difference betweenJohnson’s treatment of the two authors and Webster’s. That is, Johnson quoted fromShakespeare in first-order frequency, and from Bacon in fifth-order frequency. Webster, onthe other hand, quoted from Shakespeare in third-order frequency, and from Bacon in ninth-order frequency, showing that he did not quote from the authors so frequently as Johnsondid.

80

4.3.3 Citations from American Authors

A false perspective has been repeated to date that Webster supplied abundant citations fromAmerican 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 asfollows:

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 theirwritings or by their science; but it is with pride and satisfaction, that I can place them, asauthorities, 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 satisfactionseems somewhat irrelevant and puerile. In a dictionary it is of no great importance whetherquotations 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 anabundance of citations from American authors in his Dictionary. Joseph Friend (1967:36) isin 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 tookpride in his use of illustrative quotations from the works of American writers.” And AlbertBaugh (2002:369) has believed that a significant feature of Webster’s Dictionary lay in aconsiderable number of “quotations from American authors”. All these four authoritieshave expressed their opinions based on Webster’s statement above. However, as Table 3 inSection 4.3.2 indicates, Webster seldom quoted from the American authors he mentioned inthe passage; the table shows that he merely quoted once each from Michael Walsh, DavidRamsay, James/Joseph Kent, Washington Irving and Moses/Parker Cleaveland, and twotimes each from George Mason, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin. Thus,citations from American authors in Webster’s Dictionary are quite rare, and far smaller innumber 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 therecognition that there is a discrepancy between Webster’s statement and his practice inquoting 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 illustrationshe 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 canplace 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 andtheir synonyms are not included in the passage from the “Preface”. In other words, thepassage only means that Webster put down the names of American authors, and nothingmore than that. In this sense, Webster can be regarded as having done what he said in thepassage. 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 four-sided prisms. Cleaveland.

As these examples show, Webster sometimes indicated the names of American authors nextto 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 pitythat Micklethwait did not associate the practice to the related passage in the “Preface” toWebster’s Dictionary. I will not go into detail about this, for it has little relevance tocitations. 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 withoutquoting from them. There was Webster’s predecessor in this practice. It was none otherthan Johnson. In the abridged edition of his Dictionary, Johnson usually indicated thenames 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 inand after 1660. Referring to the textbooks Webster published before the compilation of hisDictionary, Tom McArthur (1986:100) claimed “He [Webster] went on to produce agrammar and a reader, and for purposes of citation and exemplification drew uponAmerican rather than British texts”. Whether this claim may be justified or not, the fact isthat 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 inhis Dictionary. These verbal examples are often preceded by the conjunction as, and givennext to definitions. They are actually large in number. For instance, there are 13 instancesof 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 hisDictionary. The primary purpose of these verbal examples clearly lay in illustrating theusage of entry-words. This becomes clear from the following examples in the first four sub-entries on large:

W: LARGE, a. 1-41. 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 thenecessity 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 landin 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 areoccasionally accompanied by invented phrases.

The following example indicates that Webster from time to time supplied his inventedsentences to illustrate the figurative meanings of words; in order to support his inventedexample, 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 lexicographicpractice. Joseph Friend, for instance, has claimed that:

Johnson prefers to rely on the illustrative quotations, for the most part literary, with which hisdefinitions are generously provided, to carry much of the burden; he does not always troublehimself to spell out an obvious figurative extension of meaning. Webster, on the other hand, isconcerned to make explicit every semantic discrimination he perceives. He does not depend soheavily 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 hiscomments 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 orprosperity, 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 towhich 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 theusage of words, sometimes making use of citations. About this practice, Webster himselfstated that:

In many cases, I have given brief sentences of my own; using the phrases or sentences in which theword most frequently occurs [...]. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])

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

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. Thishas often been referred to among authorities on their dictionaries from the viewpoint oftheir morality. For instance, William Wimsatt (1959:80), an authority on Johnson’sDictionary, has claimed that “the Dictionary [of Johnson’s] is fortified [...] by morality andreligion - by passages from the whole range of the Old and New Testaments”. DavidMicklethwait (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 theBible”. In contrast to this tendency, it has been quite rare that their biblical citations areanalysed from the viewpoint of lexicographic technique. It has been widely acknowledgedthat Johnson and Webster were pious Christians, respectively. Therefore, it may be naturalthat 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 aboutWebster’s Dictionary. As a matter of fact, Webster supplied most of his biblical citationsinduced not by his morality but by his preference to indicate the usage of entry-words in hisDictionary. This becomes clear when Webster’s biblical citations are compared withJohnson’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’sDictionary, has claimed that “Johnson had quoted liberally from the Bible, but apparentlynot nearly often enough to please Webster”. This is a claim which summarizes Reed’srecognition 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 timeto 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-orderfrequency in the L’s in his Dictionary, while Johnson quoted from the same source in third-order frequency within the corresponding range of his Dictionary; when the total number ofcitations is taken into account, Webster’s biblical citations account for 28.8% of allcitations 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 theBible as often as Reed thought. When Table 1 in Section 4.1.1 and Table 3 in Section 4.3.2are collated, it becomes revealed that Webster quoted 182 times from the Bible and Johnson270 times within the respective ranges of the L’s in their dictionaries. And when thenumber of entries is taken into account, Webster allocated biblical citations 0.08 times perentry, and Johnson 0.21. Thus, the fact is that Webster quoted from the Bible far less oftenthan Johnson. Reed’s misleading claim can be regarded as the result of his excessiveemphasis on Webster’s morality.

However, this fact means neither that Webster was simply reserved in quoting from theBible, nor that he almost always copied biblical citations from Johnson’s Dictionary. Theanalysis of the 182 biblical citations in Webster’s Dictionary reveals that he borrowed only71 of them from Johnson’s Dictionary. In other words, Webster excluded 199 biblicalcitations in Johnson’s Dictionary and selected 111 anew by himself, signifying his uniquepractice in quoting from the Bible. In the following sub-sections, I will analyse Webster’sbiblical citations from four angles: those he excluded from Johnson’s; those he added toJohnson’s; those he substituted for Johnson’s; and those he borrowed from Johnson’s. Inthese analyses, I also hope to clarify Johnson’s practice in supplying biblical citations at thesame 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 respectiveranges of the L’s in their dictionaries. The table below shows in what types of entries thetwo lexicographers supplied the citations. The figures here indicate the number of biblicalcitations; the letters J and W indicate Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s, respectively; andthe spellings of entry-words and the abbreviations of parts of speech are based onWebster’s except for the case where there are entries in which only Johnson suppliedbiblical citations.

Table 4: Biblical Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter Lin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Entry-words J W Entry-words J W Entry-words J W

labor, n. 1 1 leaved, a. 1 --- lintel, n. 1 ---labor, v.i. 5 4 leaven, n. 1 1 list, v.i. --- 1labor, v.t. 1 --- leaven, v.t. 1 1 listen, v.i. 1 ---lack, v.t. 1 1 led, pret./ pp. 2 --- little, a. 3 1lack, v.i. 3 2 legion, n. --- 1 little, a. 2 ---lack, n. --- 1 lend, v.t. 1 --- little, adv. 1 ---lade, v.t. 1 1 lender, n. --- 1 live, v.i. 4 5laid, pret./pp.

1 --- lengthen, v.t. 1 --- live, a. 1 ---

lain, pp. 1 --- lentil, n. 1 --- living, n. 1 1Lamb, n. --- 1 leper, n. 1 --- living, n. --- 2Lament, v.i. 3 1 leprosy, n. 1 --- lo, exclam. --- 2Lamentation,n.

1 1 leprous, n. --- 1 load, v.t. 1 ---

Lance, n. 1 --- less, a. 1 2 loathe, v.t. 1 ---Land, n. --- 1 less, n. 2 --- locust, n. 1 ---Landmark, n. --- 1 lesser, a. --- 1 lodge, v.i. 2 ---Languish, v.i. 2 3 lesson, n. 1 1 loftily, adv. 1 1lap, v.i. --- 1 lest, con. 1 2 lofty, a. --- 1Lapful, n. 1 --- let, v.t. 11 3 log, n. 1 ---Large, a. 2 --- letter, n. 2 --- long, a. 10 1Lascivious-ness, n.

--- 1 leviathan, n. 1 --- long, adv. 5 3

last, n. 1 --- levy, v.t. 1 --- long, v.i. 1 3last, a. --- 1 liberally, adv. 1 1 long-

suffering, a.1 1

Latchet, n. 1 --- license, n. 2 --- long-suffering, n.

--- 1

Lately, adv. 1 --- lick, v.t. 1 2 look, v.i. 9 7Lattice, n. 1 1 lie, v.i. 2 1 look, v.t. 1 ---Laugh, v.t. 1 1 lie, v.i. 11 3 look, n.s. 1 ---Laughter, n. --- 1 lien,

participle.1 --- loose, v.t. 9 9

Launch, v.i. 1 --- lier, n. 1 --- loose, v.i. 1 1

86

Table 4: Biblical Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter Lin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries (continued)

Entry-words J W Entry-words J W Entry-words J W

law, n. --- 4 life, n. 1 6 loose, a. 3 ---Lawful, a. 1 --- lift, v.t. 5 4 lord, n. --- 1lay, pret. 1 1 lifter, n. 1 --- lordship, n. 1 1lay, v.t. 30 12 light, n. 3 11 lose, v.t. 2 2lay, v.i. 1 1 light, a. 3 1 loss, n. 1 ---lead, v.t. 1 --- light, v.i. 3 3 lot, n. 1 2lead, v.t. 6 2 lighten, v.i. 1 --- lothe, v.t. --- 2lead, v.i. 1 1 lighten, v.t. 1 2 loud, a. 1 1Leader, n. 1 --- light-minded,

a.1 1 love, v.t. 2 1

leaf, n. 1 --- lignaloes, n. 1 --- love, n. 5 1League, n. 2 --- ligure, n. 1 --- lovely, a. 1 1lean, v.i. 1 1 like, a. 2 5 loving, ppr. 1 ---lean, a. 1 --- like, adv. 2 3 loving-

kindnes, n.1 1

leanness, n. --- 1 like, v.t. 1 --- louse, n. 1 ---leap, v.i. 4 1 like, v.i. 1 --- low, a. 1 ---learn, v.t. 2 1 liken, v.t. --- 1 low, v.i. 1 ---learn, v.i. 1 1 likewise, adv. 1 1 lowliness, n. --- 1leasing, n. 1 --- liking, a. 1 --- lowly, a. 1 2least, a. 1 1 liking, n. 1 1 lucre, n. --- 1leather, n. 1 --- limit, n. 1 --- lurk, v.i. 1 1leave, n. --- 1 limit, v.t. 1 1 lurking-

place, n.1 ---

leave, v.t. 8 4 lineage, n. 1 --- lust, n. 2 1leave, v.i. 2 1 linger, v.i. --- 1 lying, ppr. 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 wordssuch as technical terms and the names of animals and plants. In contrast to this, Websterselected 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 entriesare divided into three types: entries on encyclopaedic words, those on inflected forms ofverbs and those treating obsolete usage of words. I will discuss the three types below in thisorder.

(1) Webster’s Exclusion of Biblical Citations Supplied in Entries on Encyclopaedic Wordsin Johnson’s DictionaryJohnson 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 areclosely 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. Marki. 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 poetrygenerally 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 sourcesfor 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 ofScripture. In Isaiah, it is called the crooked serpent. It is not agreed what animal is intended by thewriters, 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 ascriptural glossary as compared to Johnson’s.

(2) Webster’s Exclusion of Biblical Citations Supplied in Entries on Inflected Forms ofVerbs in Johnson’s DictionaryWebster basically disregarded Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on inflected forms ofverbs, specifically, the entries on laid, lain, led, lien, loving and lying. The followingexamples 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 thebody 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 ofObsolete Usage of WordsWhen Webster thought that Johnson supplied biblical citations to illustrate obsolete usageof words, he generally excluded them. For instance, Johnson quoted from the Bible in theentry 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 bemore clearly observed in the following example. Here, he borrowed Johnson’s citation fromBacon 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 oneentire 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 oneentire 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 asrevealed in Table 4 beforehand, his unique practice as above, which will be regarded asexemplifying the tendencies, may be passed over or thought to be a reflection of his state ofmind when writing the entries.

I have thus far analysed Webster’s practice in his exclusion of Johnson’s biblicalcitations. It may safely be said that Webster usually thought it unnecessary to quote fromthe Bible for words which needed little instruction in terms of grammar and usage at histime. Incidentally, Webster did not exclude Johnson’s biblical citations in entries oninfinitives 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 quoted111 phrases and sentences from the Bible which are not seen in the entries within the rangeof the L’s in Johnson’s Dictionary. Table 4 in the preceding sub-section partially reflectsthe 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 howWebster quoted directly from the Bible without referring to Johnson’s Dictionary. In thefollowing Table, the letter ‘N’, which stands for ‘new’, indicates the number of biblicalcitations Webster uniquely supplied in the respective entries.

Table 5: Biblical Citations from the Original Source in Entries on Wordsfor the Letter L in Webster's Dictionary

Entry-words N Entry-words N Entry-words N Entry-words N

labor, n. 1 leaness, n. 1 life, n. 6 look, v.i. 4labor, v.i. 4 leap, v.i. 1 lift, v.t. 3 loose, v.t. 3lack, v.t. 1 least, a. 1 light, n. 8 loose, v.i. 1lack, v.i. 1 leave, n. 1 lighten, v.t. 2 lord, n. 1lack, n. 1 leave, v.t. 2 like, a. 4 lose, v.t. 1lamb, n. 1 leaven, n. 1 like, adv. 1 lot, n. 2lamentation, n. 1 leaven, v.t. 1 liken, v.t. 1 lothe, v.t. 2land, n. 1 legion, n. 1 likewise, adv. 1 love, v.t. 1landmark, n. 1 lender, n. 1 linger, v.i. 1 love, n. 1languish, v.i. 2 leprous, n. 1 list, v.i. 1 loving-

kindness, n.1

lap, v.i. 1 less, n. 2 live, v.i. 4 lowliness, n. 1lasciviousness, n. 1 lesser, adj. 1 living, n. 1 lowly, adj. 1laughter, n. 1 lest, conj. 2 lo, interj. 2 lucre, n. 1law, n. 4 let, v.t. 2 lofty, adj. 1 lust, v.i. 4lay, v.t. 4 lick, v.t. 1 long, v.i. 3 ----- -lead, v.t. 1 lie, v.i. 2 long-suffering, n. 1 ----- -

90

This table shows that Webster usually selected biblical citations by himself in entries onwords of high frequency.

Out of the 111 citations Webster took directly from the Bible, there are 7 whichmanifestly 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 arerelated 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 hisDictionary, 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 hedifferentiated the citations from other biblical citations. In other words, there is probabilitythat the remaining 104 of his selection are supplied for the instruction of English usage. Thecontents 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 ofmen of letters, and no distinction is made between the two types of citations. This practiceis 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 respectdiffering 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 acapacity 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 someobject 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.’ areparticularly notable. In this sub-entry, Webster mentioned the difference between the senseof set and that of lay. This signifies that Webster supplied the citations from Jonah. andDan. 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 graduallybecomes clear that he often supplied them for the instruction of English usage, irrelevantlyto 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 substitutedthem for Johnson’s.

When Webster’s biblical citations and Johnson’s are not the same in the entriescorresponding to each other, and the entries are not divided into sub-entries, this means thatWebster 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 thecontents 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, theleast 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 isclear that Webster supplied the citation based on his view of the usage of least rather thanhis 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 shouldseem 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. Thathere refers to the preceding command or sentence; that being removed or not observed, the factbeing 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 grammaticalexplanation. 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 youby 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 theirwealth 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’scitation is rather complicated. Johnson’s includes a reporting verb and is composed of fiveclauses. 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 areregarded as substitutions for Johnson’s. Such cases are seen in the entries on leap, long andloose, the contents of which will be investigated one by one. Firstly, the following are thecontents 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 tookher 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 thatWebster 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 beregarded as an illustration of the remark. Webster did the same. However, Websterpreferred to supply short citations from the Bible, including the phrases long after and longfor. 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 suppliedthis citation is probably that it contains tie, an antonym of loose. It can be said that Webstertried to contrast loose with tie so that the sense of loose might be grasped easily; thiscitation 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 citationssubstituted 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’sin his Dictionary. Webster, however, did not necessarily incorporate the 71 citations as theywere. There are three tendencies in his practice of incorporating Johnson’s biblicalcitations: Webster shortened many of Johnson’s citations; he occasionally made use ofthem for purposes different from Johnson’s; and there are times when he partially modifiedthem based on his view of English usage. In this sub-section, the analysis will be made inaccordance with these three tendencies.

(1) Webster’s Abbreviation of Johnson’s Biblical CitationsWebster shortened 23 biblical citations out of the 71 which he borrowed from the L’s inJohnson’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 theirlamentations. 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 wasconcerned 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 notdivided. 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 followingexample 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 aspossible in terms of sentence structure. Webster borrowed 47 of Johnson’s citations as theyare. Many of the 47 citations are composed of one or two clauses; 13 are of one clause and21 are of two clauses. Few citations are composed of more than two clauses; there are 6citations composed of three clauses, and only 2 composed of four clauses. The remainingcitations 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 CitationsWebster occasionally made use of Johnson’s biblical citations for purposes different fromJohnson’s. In this occasion, Webster’s practice of borrowing Johnson’s biblical citationsreveals 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 laydown, Webster made use of it to illustrate lay one’s self down; Webster is thought to havehad an idea that an object of lay is necessary before down. In the following example, whileJohnson 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’spractice. In this sub-entry, Webster incorporated Johnson’s biblical citation which had beensupplied 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 thefollowing 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. 2Kings 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 ofwords more in detail than Johnson. In the entry on loose in Johnson’s Dictionary, there is asub-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 whichare 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 ofopen, 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 acitation 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 thetwo citations as having the same sense.

(3) Webster’s Modification of Johnson’s Biblical CitationsThough not so often, there are times when Webster partially modified Johnson’s biblicalcitations 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. Concerningthe first clause of the sentence, Webster’s citation is different from Johnson’s in tworespects; he replaced unto and lay in Johnson’s with to and join. Which of Webster’s andJohnson’s is in accord with the original clause? The answer is neither of them. Thecorresponding part in the AV reads:

Woe vnto them that ioyne house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that theymay be placed alone in the midst of the earth.

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

98

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

It was already analysed in Section 4.5.3 that Webster excluded Johnson’s biblical citationswhich Johnson had used to illustrate obsolete usage of words. It can be said that in quotingfrom the Bible, Webster was swayed by the temptation to modernize archaic and obsoletewording included in it. There are two other examples of the same kind. One of them is asfollows:

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. Inconjunction with this modification, it will be beneficial to refer to Thomas Pyles’sfollowing opinion:

He [Webster] had long been troubled by the bad grammar of the English Bible, such as its use ofhis for its, as in “If the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted?” (It is not surprisingthat its, which appears first in writing in 1594, was not used in 1611 by linguistically conservativetheologians) [...]. (Pyles 1954:95)

This opinion is not about the citation in the entry on lose in Webster’s Dictionary but abouthis 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 citationalso indicates that his view of English grammar motivated him to rewrite the Bible. In thissense, 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 thoroughlyinduced by his morality, and that Webster’s major purpose of his version of the Bible hadbeen to eliminate inappropriate words in terms of morality; Micklethwait (2000:191) hasclaimed that “Webster was particularly sensitive to rude words, and when he had finishedwork on the dictionary he set about expurgating the Bible”. When Webster’s modificationof the sentence in the Bibleabove is taken into account, this assumption of Micklethwait’scan hardly be justified.

4.5.7 Generalization of the Analysis

Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s are both characterized by an abundance of biblicalcitations. However, there are some distinctive differences between Johnson and Webster intheir use of phrases and sentences from the Bible.

As for Johnson, he generously supplied biblical citations in his Dictionary. He quotedfrom the Bible to illustrate the senses of words in general, and to provide encyclopaedicinformation. On the other hand, Webster had clear criteria in quoting from the Bible. Hebasically did not supply biblical citations to illustrate the usage and senses of obsoletewords and to provide encyclopaedic information. Instead, Webster frequently made use ofbiblical citations to illustrate his explanation of contemporary usage. The number ofWebster’s biblical citations is far smaller than that of Johnson’s. However, the smallnumber can be regarded as evidence of his careful selection of the citations. There is apassage 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 thewords. 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 biblicalcitations 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 amongAmericans at his time; he sometimes modified the original biblical phrases and sentences tomake the wording in them suitable to the customary use of the language. It can now beconcluded that Webster quoted from the Bible mainly for the purpose of improving Englishusage among Americans; for the sake of this purpose, he made full use of the Americaneducational situation at his time which placed special emphasis on religious education. Ashe said in the passage above, many of his biblical citations are thought to have beenfamiliar 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 adequatefor religious education.

5: Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequencyand 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, bothJohnson and Webster divided entries on this type of word into a considerable number ofsub-entries. Accordingly, they also supplied a much larger number of citations in the entriesthan in others. The following table shows the situation. This is based on the results of theanalysis 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 Imentioned 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 Englishlanguage”. Here, the spellings of entry-words and the abbreviations of parts of speech areWebster’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 Frequencyin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Johnson Webster Johnson WebsterEntry-words S C S C Entry-words S C S C

bear, v.t. 32 69 20 7 make, v.t. 30 103 31 16bear, v.i. 9 20 6 4 make, v.i. 4 29 3 ---break, v.t. 22 47 23 2 put, v.t. 21 82 14 10break, v.i. 12 38 13 3 put, v.i. 3 4 3 2cast, v.t. 31 69 25 11 set, v.t. 26 125 29 20cast, v.i. 3 9 4 4 set, v.i. 11 21 8 2come, v.i. 15 48 9 12 run, v.i. 43 91 56 22fall, v.i. 36 88 28 22 run, v.t. 10 25 13 6fall, v.t. 4 7 5 --- take, v.t. 66 169 40 22get, v.t. 17 54 6 2 take, v.i. 4 10 4 4get, v.n./v.i. 9 49 1 --- throw, v.t. 13 31 10 3give, v.t. 22 62 23 11 throw, v.i. 2 1 2 ---give, v.i. 3 7 3 1 turn, v.t. 34 66 32 16go, v.i. 49 128 39 16 turn. v.i. 20 44 17 6

This table indicates that Johnson provided 19.7 sub-entries on average per entry andWebster 16.7 within the respective ranges of entries on verbs of high frequency. It has oftenbeen said that Johnson divided entries into a considerable number of sub-entries based onthe 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 Dictionaryis 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-wordsmore than Johnson. To be specific, Table 6 shows that Webster divided 9 entries out of 28into 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 Johnsonallocated 4,047 citations in all in 1,310 entries on words for the letter L; this means thatJohnson usually allocated 3.1 citations on average per entry. As for Webster, the analysis inSection 4.3.2 revealed that he usually allocated 0.3 citations on average per entry. In entrieson verbs of high frequency, on the other hand, the perusal of Table 6 shows that Johnsonallocated 1,496 citations in 28 entries, compared to Webster’s 224 for the same number ofentries. This means that Johnson allocated 53.4 citations on average per entry in contrast toWebster’s 8.0 here; the former allocated citations 17 times more frequently than usual, andthe latter 27 times. In this way, it is found that both lexicographers divided entries on verbsof high frequency into a considerable number of sub-entries, supplying quite a largenumber of citations in them. However, this does not mean that Johnson and Webster treatedthis type of word identically.

In order to determine the differences between the two lexicographers in this respect, itbecomes necessary in the first place to investigate how they recognized verbs of highfrequency. As for Johnson, he seems to have been greatly troubled by the treatment of theseverbs. This is because he tried to tackle them with a normative attitude. In the “Preface” tohis 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 verbsalso troubled him:

[...] and the senses [of verbs of high frequency] detorted so widely from the first idea, that it ishard to trace them through the maze of variation, to catch them on the brink of utter inanity, tocircumscribe them by any limitations, or interpret them by any words of distinct and settledmeaning [...]. (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 hisprobable failure in the treatment of the verbs:

If of these the whole power is not accurately delivered, it must be remembered, that while ourlanguage is yet living, and variable by the caprice of every one that speaks it, these words arehourly shifting their relations, and can no more be ascertained in a dictionary, than a grove, in theagitation 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 ofthe verbs, but, at the same time, became aware of their irresistible mutability. Johnson’sdistress 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, whetheractive 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 alexicographer 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 isnot the slightest evidence to suggest Webster’s trouble in treating such verbs.

There is another noticeable difference between the two lexicographers in the treatment ofthe 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 theirsenses, and in the respective sub-entries he usually gave definitions one by one separatelyfrom one another. For this reason, each of the sub-entries is basically independent of andnot interrelated with others. For instance, the definitions in the first three sub-entries onbreak (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 frequencyin English dictionaries.

Compared with this practice of Johnson’s, Webster exercised his ingenuity in indicatingthe senses of this type of verb. That is, he often indicated primary senses of the verbs at thebeginnings 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, makeyour servant work, make him go.

The most significant example is observed in the entry on take (v.t.). Webster divided thisentry into 40 sub-entries. In the first sub-entry, he made the following remarks which endwith 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 byreceiving it when offered, or by using exertion to obtain it. Take differs from seize, as it does notalways imply haste, force or violence. It more generally denotes to gain or receive into possessionin a peaceable manner, either passively or by active exertions. Thus,

Then, after Thus, Webster provided other sub-entries one after another. This indicates thatthe first sub-entry is an introduction to the following 39 sub-entries. Such an attitude is inno way found in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary; Johnson simply statedthe 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 wordwhich 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 Citationsin Entries on Verbs of High Frequency

As mentioned in the previous sub-section, Johnson supplied 1,496 citations in entries onverbs 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 fromrespective sources.

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

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Bible 249 Tillotson 9 Philips 3 Otway 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 Frequencyin 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. Asseen 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 caseof entries on verbs of high frequency. This phenomenon can hardly be regarded as a chancehappening. In entries on words for the letter L, citations from the Bible account for 6.7%, or270 in number out of 4,047. By contrast, in entries on verbs of high frequency, they accountfor 16.7%, or 249 out of 1,496. This difference is not negligible, and it strongly indicatesthe probability that Johnson intentionally quoted especially frequently from the Bible inentries on such verbs.

Table 7 also reveals one more significant fact. It was also observed in Section 4.2.2 thatJohnson occasionally replaced his definitions with citations from authors who are not menof letters. As confirmed then, Johnson quoted especially often from Hanmer, Harris, Hilland 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 highfrequency. 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 encyclopaedicexplanation. It was already confirmed that Johnson replaced his definitions with citationsmainly for the purpose of providing encyclopaedic information. In this sense, the fact thatthe four authors do not appear in Table 7 signifies that Johnson selected the sources ofcitations 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 withthe exception of sub-entries provided for idioms in them, which will be clearly seen inTable 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 onverbs of high frequency are as shown below.

Table 8: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequencyin 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 theBible in first-order frequency, Dryden in second-order and Shakespeare in third-order. Therank-order of the three sources is identical with that in the case of entries on words for theletter L, which is revealed in Table 3 in Section 4.3.2. Besides, he seldom quoted fromAmerican authors in either case. This situation indicates that Webster, in contrast toJohnson, 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 Citationsin Entries on Verbs of High Frequency

As I analysed above, both Johnson and Webster quoted from the Bible in first-orderfrequency in entries on verbs of high frequency. To be more specific, they supplied biblicalcitations in the entries as shown in the table below. The letters J and W here stand forJohnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s, and the figures indicate the number of biblicalcitations in respective entries.

Table 9: Biblical Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequencyin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Entry-words J W Entry-words J W Entry-words J W

bear, v.t. 11 3 get, v.i. 5 --- run, v.i. 10 2bear, v.i. --- --- give, v.t. 8 6 run, v.t. 1 1break, v.t. 2 --- give, v.i. --- --- take, v.t. 34 10break, v.i. 3 1 go, v.i. 30 3 take, v.i. --- ---cast, v.t. 9 8 make, v.t. 40 5 throw, v.t. 3 ---cast, v.i. --- --- make, v.i. 2 --- throw, v.i. --- ---come, v.i. 6 8 put, v.t. 25 3 turn, v.t. 6 4fall, v.i. 13 9 put, v.i. --- --- turn. v.i. 4 2fall, v.t. --- --- set, v.t. 24 8 ----- --- ---get, v.t. 11 --- set, v.i. 2 --- ----- --- ---

This table shows that Johnson supplied biblical citations in 21 entries on verbs of highfrequency out of 28 to be treated here. This means that biblical citations are supplied inalmost 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 28entries, which is reflected in Table 6 in Section 5.1.1. He supplied biblical citations forapproximately a quarter of them, specifically for 138 sub-entries. We can confirm here thatJohnson 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 inentries on this type of verb. He entirely eliminated Johnson’s biblical citations supplied in 6entries, namely the entries on break (v.t.), get (v.t.), get (v.i.), make (v.i.), set (v.i.) andthrow (v.t.). Additionally, it can be clearly observed that in almost all entries Webstereliminated Johnson’s biblical citations; Webster’s biblical citations are smaller in numberthan Johnson’s in 13 entries, and in only one entry, on come (v.i.), Webster’s outnumberJohnson’s by a margin of 2. In this way, when compared with Johnson, Webster suppliedquite a small number of biblical citations in entries on these verbs. However, in terms of theuse of the citations, Webster was far more skilful than Johnson in light of lexicographicaltechnique, as will be proved below.

As mentioned above, Johnson supplied biblical citations in 138 sub-entries on verbs ofhigh 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); inthe 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 byJohnson.

Table 10: Biblical Citations in Sub-entries on Verbs of High Frequencyin Johnson’s Dictionary

Entry-words Type 1 Type 2 Entry-words Type 1 Type 2

bear, (v.a.) 2, 8, 13, 17,24.

7, 9, 12, 13. make, (v.a.) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,8, 9, 17.

21, 22, 29.

bear, (v.n.) ----- ----- make, (v.n.) 2, 4. -----break, (v.a.) 1. ----- put, (v.a.) 1, 2, 3, 8, 9,

14, 16.4, 5, 11, 12,18.

break, (v.n.) 10. ----- put. (v.n.) ----- -----cast, (v.a.) 1, 9, 10. 3, 6, 7, 11,

19.set, (v.a.) 1, 2, 10, 12,

20, 21.19, 22.

cast, (v.n.) ----- ----- set, (v.n.) 1. 3.come, (v.n.) 3, 6, 13. 4, 15. run, (v.n.) 1, 5, 9, 35,

37.4, 6, 36.

fall, (v.n.) 2, 8, 9, 11, 22,28, 33.

3, 5, 30. run, (v.a.) 4. -----

fall, (v.a.) ----- ----- take, (v.a.) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8,22, 24, 25,32, 33, 34,36, 38, 40,50.

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

get, (v.a.) 1, 3, 14, 15. ----- take, (v.n.) ----- -----get, (v.n.) 1, 4, 7. ----- throw, (v.a.) 1. -----give, (v.a.) 1, 2, 4, 7, 20. 6. throw, (v.n.) ----- -----give, (v.n.) ----- ----- turn, (v.a.) 9. 15, 18, 30,

33.go, (v.n.) 5, 8, 9, 10, 13,

14, 15, 26, 29,35, 47.

2, 11, 17, 22,48.

turn, (v.n.) 8, 12. -----

As to the sub-entries of Type 1, Johnson manifestly did not distinguish biblical citationsfrom other citations there. The following is a couple of examples of the contents in this typeof 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 onsafely 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 thatsuch 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 thosefrom the Bible. It may safely be said that Johnson quoted from the Bible in these sub-entries because of his attachment to morality, not because of his wish to indicate the sensesand usage of the language.

In Webster’s case, he borrowed some biblical citations from Johnson’s Dictionary. Theyaccount for 42 of 73 citations from the Bible within the range of entries on verbs of highfrequency in Webster’s Dictionary. In other words, Webster disregarded 249 of Johnson’sbiblical citations and chose 31 passages directly from the Bible by himself. However, littlecan be known about his criteria for the selection of these 31 passages. Only the fact is foundthat 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 usualsenses 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 clearlyreveals how Webster made use of biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency. Iwill discuss the point below.

With regard to the point, what is especially conspicuous is that Webster boldly shortenedmost 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 shortphrases 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 theshoulder;” “the eagle beareth them on her wings.” Isaiah. Deuteronomy.

The examples above clearly show that Webster did not choose biblical passages to bequoted based on his morality. Actually, most of Webster’s biblical citations in entries onverbs of high frequency are composed of less than ten words. They form a contrast withcitations from other sources. In other words, when Webster borrowed other citations fromentries on verbs of high frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary, he did not make them so shortas he did in the case of biblical citations. In many cases, Webster’s citations from thesources 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 takenfrom 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 takenfrom 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 virtueand 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 theman’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. Thereason for this can be ascribed to Webster’s recognition of the relationship between theAmerican 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 Websterthought that short phrases and sentences from the Bible were enough for the readers of hisDictionary to understand in what context the respective entry-words were used.

However, Webster did not shorten Johnson’s biblical citations merely to save space inhis Dictionary. Shortening Johnson’s biblical citations as shown above, Webster uniquelymade use of them. This can be noticed after we fully recognize that Webster very oftenshortened Johnson’s citations from the Bible and that in most cases he did not thought ofmorality when quoting biblical passages in entries on verbs of high frequency. In concreteterms, through the analysis of such shortened citations, it becomes possible to knowWebster’s view of the senses and usage of some verbs of high frequency which isconsiderably different from Johnson’s. This can especially be said when Webster providedusage notes with such citations. In the following analysis, I will refer to some examples toclarify the point.

Firstly, Webster often made use of Johnson’s biblical citations to illustrate his own viewof 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 thesame sense as that in the sentence from Ex. Webster thought differently. He separated thecitations 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.). Johnsonsupplied 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 ofEnglish grammar and Webster’s through the analysis of their biblical citations. Oneexample 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 viewthat set in this citation is an intransitive verb; he was to leave the citation in the same entryin the fourth edition of his Dictionary.

Thirdly, there are times when Webster provided usage notes, referring to Johnson’sbiblical citations. In the entry on come (v.n.), Johnson simply quoted from Job. to illustratehis 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 toblows; 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 heircomes into possession of his estate; the man will come in time to abhor the vices of his youth, orhe 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 themind, 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 inthem 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 opinionor way.

Concerning this point, it is not that Johnson did not quote from the Bible to illustrate hisview of the usage of verbs of high frequency. He, however did this only in 2 sub-entries outof 138 in which he supplied biblical citations; the one is a sub-entry of Type 1, and theother is that of Type 2. Concerning the former, he supplied 9 citations in a sub-entry oncome (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 oftending towards another. The word always respects the place to which the motion tends, not thatplace which it leaves; yet this meaning is sometimes almost evanescent and imperceptible.

I did hearThe 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. Merchantof Venice.

As soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits. 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 inEntries on Verbs of High Frequency

In this sub-section, I will first analyse Johnson’s practice of using citations from sourcesother than the Bible when he provided usage notes, and analyse how Webster followed andmodified the practice after that. Besides, I will also investigate how Webster made use ofsuch citations of Johnson’s.

As confirmed in the previous sub-section, in spite of the fact that Johnson suppliedabundant biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency, he rarely used them toillustrate the usage of words. This fact may seem to indicate that he hardly provided usagenotes in those entries. Actually, however, Johnson occasionally instructed the usage ofwords there, and he also illustrated them with a considerable number of citations. In thispractice, Johnson basically supplied citations from sources other than the Bible; heevidently avoided quoting from the Bible in such cases, which strengthens the probabilitythat he supplied biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency almost entirelybecause of his morality. How, then, did Johnson make use of citations taken from sourcesother than the Bible? Johnson used them in two ways for the purpose of illustrating hiscomments on the usage of relevant words.

One way is that he supplied such citations to show the ‘incorrect’ use of entry-words. Inthe following examples, Johnson censured Dryden’s and Hooker’s use of give, andShakespeare’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 sometimesfound 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-wordsunder his usage notes. He did this especially when indicating the prepositions to be usedwith 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 inthese four sub-entries: 2 each from Addison, Bacon, Ben Jonson, William Broome andDryden, and 1 each from Robert Boyle, Thomas Burnet, Samuel Daniel, Nehemiah Grew,Samuel Butler, Locke, Milton, John Ray, Shakespeare, John Tillotson and John Wilkins. Itis 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 highfrequency, 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 lesspressed. 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 latertimes. Bacon.

Reject not then what offer’d means: who knowsBut God hath set before us, to return theeHome 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 theBible. 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 thispractice, Webster often borrowed citations supplied in the entries on verbs of highfrequency in Johnson’s Dictionary. However, this does not mean that Webster acceptedJohnson’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’. Thefollowing is a couple of examples taken from these sub-entries, which clearly shows howWebster made use of Johnson’s practice and citations based on his unique view of thesewords:

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 ofpain, 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 nocorn, I have got no money, she has got a fair complexion, when the person means only, I have nocorn, I have no money, she has a fair complexion.

As these examples indicate, Webster certainly made use of Johnson’s citations in hispractice, 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, whowas basically prescriptive and cared about the preservation of ‘genuinely’ literaryexpressions, did not comment on have got. As Webster suggested, this is a colloquialexpression; the OED attached the label “colloq.” to have got. In this sense, Webster may besaid to have been more prescriptive than Johnson here. Besides, it can even be said that hisview of the expression revealed in the sub-entry is in common with that of somelexicographers of modern English dictionaries. For instance, the authors of the COBUILDhas explained the expression as follows:

[...] ‘have’ alone would be correct but more formal. The word got itself adds nothing to themeaning of ‘have’. The form have got looks as if it is the auxiliary ‘have’ followed by the pastparticiple of the verb ‘get’, but it is used with the same meanings as the main verb ‘have’, in thesenses 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 asub-entry on make (v.t.), where Webster rewrote a phrase in a citation from Dryden whichwas 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 SpanishFryar.----------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 verbsconcerned as Johnson did. However, in this case, Webster borrowed only one citation fromJohnson’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 castabout how to draw out of them things of use and practice for man’s life and knowledge. Bacon’sNew Atlantis

All events, called casual, among inanimate bodies, are mechanically produced according to thedeterminate figures, textures, and motions of those bodies, which are not conscious of their ownoperations, 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 themind; 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 Englishusage. Webster, however, preferred inventing examples to borrowing Johnson’s citations asfar as the instruction of prepositional usage is concerned within the range of entries onverbs 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 breakin upon, as calamities; to break over, as a flood; to break out, as a fire; to break forth, as light or asound.

In this way, in indicating the ‘incorrect’ use of entry-words and showing the ‘correct’ use ofprepositions concerned, Webster made use of Johnson’s patterns and citations based on hisunique 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 Biblewithin this range, there are more to be stated here. To be specific, Webster availed himselfof Johnson’s citations to illustrate the senses of some verbs which were not mentioned byJohnson and to illustrate a certain type of expression of his interest, namely an ellipticalexpression. As to the former, Webster did not always thought of the senses of verbs of highfrequency as Johnson did. It was revealed in Sections 4.5.6 and 5.1.3 that Webstersometimes separated a bunch of biblical citations supplied in a single sub-entry inJohnson’s Dictionary. Webster practiced in the same way about citations from sourcesother 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 tookFrom 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 ellipticalexpression, he seems to have had an interest in this type of expression. Within the range ofentries 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 expressionis unique to Webster, and Johnson did not mention it at all within the corresponding rangeof entries. The following examples show how Webster made use of Johnson’s citations forthe 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 amongJohnson’s citations but were passed over by Johnson.

It can safely be said that the examples observed thus far indicate that Webster neverblindly copied or shortened Johnson’s citations, and that he made full use of them based onhis unique view of the usage of verbs of high frequency. The following example seems toensure the point. In this example, it is seen that Webster skilfully combined his inventedexamples 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 greatway 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 nowthan 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 ofcitations. In view of the nature of these verbs, both lexicographers must have been free toquote from their favourite sources in the entries; in contrast with technical terms and otherhard 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 ofbiblical citations to illustrate his view of English usage; Johnson quoted from other sourcesfor that purpose. This signifies that Johnson was more a moralist than a grammarian inthese 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 variousaspects of his view of English usage and grammar. Besides, as seen in the case of entries onwords for the letter L, which was observed in Section 4.5.6, Webster shortened most ofJohnson’s biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency. These facts show thatWebster 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 toillustrate the usage of relevant words; he did this especially when indicating theprepositions to be used with some verbs. Webster performed in the same way, though heliked supplying his invented examples rather than citations for the purpose. In addition,Webster was also interested in explaining elliptical expressions, which motivated him tomake 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 beregarded as evidence which indicates that Webster almost consistently supplied verbalexamples based on his view of the usage of the verbs.

120

5.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on the Inflected Formsof Verbs of High Frequency

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

Morton Benson (1986:228), referring to Johnson’s treatment of preterites and pastparticiples of verbs in his Dictionary, has claimed that the technique in the treatment ofthese words “gradually expanded and refined in succeeding dictionaries during the 18th and19th centuries”. He, however, did not expound in what way it was to be refined afterJohnson. Joseph Reed (1962:99) has said that Webster provided a considerable number ofentries on participles in his Dictionary which were not listed in Johnson’s Dictionary, andthat Webster defined each of the participles. It is regrettable that Reed has not mentionedwhat entries on participles Webster added anew to Johnson’s Dictionary and in what wayhe defined the words. As far as I know, little consideration has been given to the point ofhow Webster borrowed and modified Johnson’s technique in providing the information onthe inflected forms of verbs.

In a sense, it may be said that the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of theinflected forms of verbs are helpful to obtain general knowledge about how much they wereconscious of English grammar in the compilation of their dictionaries. The following tableshows 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 thepresent participle, and S and C indicate the number of sub-entries and citations; when thenumber 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 Frequencyin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Johnson Webster Inf. Entry-words Johnson WebsterInf. Entry-wordsS C S C S C S C

bear bearing,ppr.

--- --- 1 0 given, pp. --- --- 1 0

bore, pret. 1 2 1 0 go going, ppr. --- --- 1 0born, pp. 1 3 2 1 went, pret. 1 0 1 0

break breaking,ppr.

--- --- 1 0 gone, pp. 5 9 6 2

broke, pret. --- --- 1 0 make making,ppr.

--- --- 1 0

broken, pp. 1 1 1 0 made, pret.and pp.

1 1 1 0

cast casting,ppr.

--- --- 1 0 put putting, ppr. --- --- 1 0

121

Table 11: Entries on the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequencyin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries (continued)

Johnson Webster Inf. Entry-words Johnson WebsterInf. Entry-wordsS C S C S C S C

come coming,ppr.

--- --- 3 1 set setting, ppr. --- --- 1 0

came, pret. 1 1 1 0 set, pp. --- --- 4 0

come, pp. 1 1 --- --- run running,ppr.

--- --- 4 0

fall falling, ppr. --- --- 1 0 ran, pret. 1 1 1 0

fell, pret. 1 1 1 0 take taking, ppr. --- --- 2 0fallen, pp. --- --- 1 0 took, pret. 1 7 1 1

get getting,ppr..

--- --- 1 0 taken, pp. 1 6 1 0

got, pret. 1 5 1 0 throw throwing,ppr.

1 1 1 0

gotten, pp. 1 2 1 0 thrown, pp. --- --- 1 0

give giving, ppr. --- --- 1 0 turn turning,ppr.

--- --- 1 0

gave, pret. 1 1 1 0 turned, pp. --- --- 1 0

This table indicates that Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the inflected forms of verbsare in sharp contrast with each other in two respects. Firstly, while Johnson did not provideany 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 treatingpresent participles. In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson stated that:

The participles are [...] omitted, unless, by signifying rather qualities than action, they take thenature 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, becausethey 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 topresent participles. When this taken into account, Johnson can be said to have practicedalmost exactly as he stated here. That is, Johnson hardly provided entries on presentparticiples. Evidently, Webster did not follow Johnson’s practice in this respect.Incidentally, it was also almost unnecessary for Johnson to provide entries on gerunds orverbal nouns. He stated that:

The verbal nouns in ing, such as the keeping of the castle, the leading of the army, are alwaysneglected, or placed only to illustrate the sense of the verb, except when they signify things as wellas actions, and have therefore a plural number, as dwelling, living; or have an absolute and abstractsignification, 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, Johnsonsometimes 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, thatWebster’s treatment of preterites and past participles of verbs is more consistent thanJohnson’s.

Since 1747, Johnson had remarked on his treatment of preterites and past participles ofverbs. In his Plan of a Dictionary, which had been published before he began to compilehis Dictionary, Johnson had stated that:

The forms of our verbs are subject to great variety; some end their preter tense in ed [...]. But manydepart from this rule, without agreeing in any other, as I shake, I shook, I have shaken, or shook asit is sometimes written in poetry; I make, I made, I have made [...] which as they cannot bereduced 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 ofverbs:

Among other derivatives I have been careful to insert and elucidate the anomalous [...] preterites ofverbs, which in the Teutonick dialects are very frequent, and, though familiar to those who havealways 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 acontradiction between his statement and practice. Differently from Johnson, Webster didnot mention his treatment of preterites and past participles. However, Table 11 indicatesthat Webster did not simply follow Johnson’s practice and that he treated this type of wordbased on his unique principle; he treated almost all preterites, as well as past participles, ofverbs of high frequency in his Dictionary.

Here, it can be tentatively concluded that Webster did not follow Johnson’s practice inhis treatment of present participles, preterites and past participles. Thus he greatly improvedJohnson’s technique in the treatment of such inflected forms of verbs.

5.2.2 Examples for Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatmentof the Inflected Forms of Verbs

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

123

In Johnson’s case, he often provided entries merely to show the existence of inflectedforms of verbs. On this occasion, Johnson sometimes supplied citations without a definitionand 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 fateTo 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 notdivided 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 acitation in this entry.

As to Webster, he treated some inflected forms of verbs as Johnson did in the entry onwent in his Dictionary. That is, Webster sometimes did nothing more than suggest thatreaders refer to entries on the infinitives there. He basically did not supply a verbal examplein 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 theirinfinitives; similar examples are seen in entries on fell, gave, got, gotten, made (pret. andpp.) and threw. In this regard, Joseph Reed’s remarks referred to at the beginning ofSection 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 formsof verbs, which Johnson often did as already observed. Webster did this only once in theentry 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 inTable 11. It is the entry on gone. In this entry, Johnson supplied a citation from Addison atthe beginning, and provided five sub-entries after that, giving a synonymous definition withone or two citations in each of them. The following is the whole of the contents of theentry:

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 wholecourse 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 transientand 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 aperspective quite different from Johnson’s. The following is the entry on gone in Webster’sDictionary:

W: GONE, pp. of go; pronounced nearly gawn.: 1-61. 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, itbecomes clear that Webster was conscious of the usage of gone, while Johnson focused hisattention on the senses of the word. Webster commented on the combination of gone andthe words far, farther, further and by. Besides, Webster’s verbal examples here include theexpressions had gone, are gone and was gone. This can be regarded as the reflection ofWebster’s consciousness of grammatical tenses.

Lastly, Webster provided entries on present participles, which are almost peculiar toWebster’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, orthrowing 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 wordas follows:

W: COMING, ppr.: 1-31. 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 tothe development of English lexicography is almost limited to the provision of relevantentries. In many cases, Johnson neither provided a usage note nor gave a definition in theentries. In this situation, citations, which were occasionally supplied in the entries, do notseem 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, thereare no entries on such words as broke and threw in his Dictionary. He also rarely providedentries on present participles. In a word, Johnson’s lexicographical technique to show theinformation 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 alsosupplied verbal examples in a more effective way than Johnson for the indication of theusage of relevant words. It can now safely be said that Webster, referring to Johnson’sDictionary, opened a new horizon of lexicographic principle in terms of showing theinformation on the inflected forms of verbs.

6: Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositionsand 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 inrelation to other types of words. For this reason, function words are often calledgrammatical 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, onebeing that represented by the prepositional complement, the other by another part of thesentence”. Because of this characteristic of prepositions, most modern Englishlexicographers do not treat the words as they treat other types of words. Johnson’s andWebster’s treatment of prepositions is accordingly thought to be different from that of verbswhich was analysed in the previous chapter.

The following table shows how Johnson and Webster treated prepositions in general. Inthis table, the letters S and C indicate the number of sub-entries and citations, respectively.

Table 12: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositionsin Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Johnson Webster Johnson Webster

Entry-words

S C S C Entry-words

S C S C

about 6 16 7 7 into 3 15 6 ---after 6 7 6 5 of 23 60 1 7at 17 39 1 --- off 2 2 2 ---before 12 14 11 11 on 20 28 14 3below 4 3 4 --- over 7 15 8 6by 25 70 14 --- throug

h4 12 6 8

down 2 3 2 --- to 24 68 28 11from 21 38 1 --- upon 21 50 20 1for 34 137 29 28 with 18 23 15 7in 8 18 1 --- ----- --- --- --- ---

This table reveals that Johnson divided 10 entries out of 19 into more sub-entries thanWebster: at, before, by, from, for, in, of, on, upon and with. As for Webster, on the otherhand, he divided 5 entries into more sub-entries than Johnson: about, into, over, throughand to. With regard to the remaining 4 entries on after, below, down and off, the numberof 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 moredetail than Webster. However, it is to be noted that Webster did not treat all prepositions ina consistent way. For instance, as the table above shows, Webster did not divide entries onat, from, in and of, while Johnson divided their corresponding entries into 17, 21, 8 and 23sub-entries in this order. This, however, does not mean that Webster made light of therelevant prepositions. In these entries, Webster gave a fairly detailed account of theprepositions. 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 considerablydifferent 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 618citations in total in 19 entries on prepositions; that is, he allocated 32.5 citations on averageper entry. As confirmed in Section 5.1.1, Johnson allocated 53.4 citations on average perentry in the case of verbs of high frequency. It can be said, therefore, that Johnson allocateda relatively small number of citations in entries on prepositions. The same is true ofWebster. He allocated 8.0 citations on average per entry within the range of entries on verbsof high frequency, which was analysed in Section 5.1.1, but he allocated 5.0 citations onaverage per entry in the case of prepositions.

Concerning the principles of their treatment of prepositions, neither Johnson nor Websterexpounded on them in the prefaces to their dictionaries. Johnson, however, referred to histreatment of particles from a broad perspective. He stated:

The particles are among all nations applied with so great latitude, that they are not easily reducibleunder 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 ascan be expected in a task, which no man, however learned or sagacious, has yet been able toperform. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 46) in the “Preface”])

Howard Weinbrot (1972:88), quoting the first half of this statement, has pointed outJohnson’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 revealsJohnson’s confidence and pride in the treatment of such words. This is in stark contrast tohis 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 ofhigh frequency, and he had to make an excuse for this to the readers of his Dictionary. Suchdistress cannot be detected at all in the statement above. The senses of prepositions are byfar more indeterminable than those of verbs of high frequency. Therefore, Johnson’sconfidence in the treatment of prepositions which was expressed in spite of this situationimplies that he treated the words in a different way from the one he adopted in the treatmentof 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 tosomething 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 illustratehis view of prepositions in English. It was generally emphasized among eighteenth-centurygrammarians that prepositions should be placed before the words or phrases governed bythem. 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 areapplied [...]. (Lowth 1762:91)

In this respect, Webster was basically in line with Johnson, though he did not refer to Latingrammar. 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 showthe relation between them, or to show the condition of things. Thus a man of benevolence, denotesa man who possesses benevolence. Christ was crucified between two thieves. Receive the bookfrom 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 thatsome 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 areprefixed, 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 inthe “Grammar”])

According to Yoshihiko Ikegami (1971:47), Webster stuck to this view throughout his lifeas a grammarian.

However, the similarity in their opinions about the position where prepositions should beplaced does not mean that Johnson and Webster treated the words identically. As I pointedout earlier in this sub-section, there is a notable difference between Johnson and Webster intheir formulation of the structures of entries on prepositions. For instance, Johnson dividedthe entry on of into 23 sub-entries and allocated 60 citations in them. In some of these sub-entries, Johnson did nothing more than giving synonymous definitions of the preposition, asthe following skeleton of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth sub-entries on the wordindicates:

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 withcitations selected genuinely for the purpose. In this case, Johnson’s invented examples areoccasionally 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 grossOf full three thousand ducats. Shakespeare.

He to his natural endowments of a large invention, a ripe judgment, and a strong memory, hasjoined the knowledge of the liberal arts. Dryden.

All men naturally fly to God in extremity, and the most atheistical person in the world, whenforsaken 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 suppliedbased 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 whatis to be termed the semantic concepts of the prepositions. It is seen here that Johnsontreated the preposition as a kind of semanticist. All definitions in the 14 sub-entries beginwith 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 prepositionas his note “With reciprocal pronoun” in the ninth sub-entry above indicates. In this sub-entry, he supplied 9 citations to illustrate the usage. The first 3 citations out of the 9 are asfollows:

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 hisDictionary. 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 thanthe entry on on which is composed of 14 sub-entries. In this entry on of, what Webster didfirst was giving the definitions of the preposition: “From or out of; proceeding from, as thecause, source, means, author or agent bestowing”. Then, he supplied the following 6biblical citations in succession, which is quite unusual for him; he did this neither in entrieson 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, theson 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, hesupplied 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, somefrom or out of the others. “I have known him of old, or of a child;” that is, from old times, from achild. “He is of the race of kings;” that is, descended from kings. “He is of noble blood or birth, orof ignoble origin.” “No particle of matter, or no body can move of itself;” that is, by force orstrength proceeding from itself, derived from itself.

At the end of these verbal examples, a citation from Franklin is supplied to illustrate a senseof 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 otherprepositions:

From is then the primary sense of this preposition; a sense retained in off, the same worddifferently 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 thusproduced, but still bearing a relation to another thing. [...] In both senses, other languages also usethe 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 orproperty.

This is the structure of the entry on of in Webster’s Dictionary which is not divided intosub-entries and consists of 115 lines. In terms of verbal examples, this entry includes 6biblical passages as authoritative citations, 31 invented phrases and sentences and 1 citationfrom Franklin. Besides, in the entry on of in his Dictionary, Webster also referred toprepositions 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 divideinto sub-entries, either. In Johnson’s case, he indicated the usage of the preposition from inone 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 thepreposition, 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 manyinvented 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 theparticiples, departing, removing to a distance. Thus it is one hundred miles from Boston toHartford. He took his sword from his side. Light proceeds from the sun. Water issues from theearth in springs. Separate the coarse wool from the fine. Men have all sprung from Adam. Menoften 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 seeminglyrelevant to Tooke’s view of the word. As I stated in Section 1.5.4, Tooke wrote a book theDiversions of Purley (1786-1805), an approach to language and grammar which made hisreputation at his time. It has been widely acknowledged that Webster was greatlyinfluenced by Tooke’s view of English grammar. Allen Read, for instance, has claimedthat:

133

He [Webster] had been alert to the advances made in his time. The greatest step forward had beenin 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 quitenatural to ascribe the fact that Webster did not divide the entry on the word to Tooke’s viewof 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’sexplanation 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 theentry. In this sense, the entry on from in Webster’s Dictionary indicates that he did notaccept 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’sDictionary is as follows:

In denotes present or inclosed, surrounded by limits; as in a house; in a fort; in a city. It denotes astate of being mixed, as sugar in tea; or combined, as carbonic acid in coal, or latent heat in air. Itdenotes present in any state; as in sickness or health. It denotes present in time; as in that hour orday.

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 thatnumber, and we say also one of ten, and one out of ten”. Webster treated the preposition atin its relevant entry almost in the same way as he treated in. The contents of the entries onin and at, as well as those on of and from, clearly indicate that Webster treated prepositionsin detail even in the entries which are not divided into sub-entries.

6.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citationsin Entries on Prepositions

As already analysed in the sub-section above, Johnson allocated 618 citations in total in 19entries on prepositions. The sources of the citations are shown in the table below. This tablereveals significant tendencies which are not observable in entries on words for the letter Land verbs of high frequency in his Dictionary.

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

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Dryden 114 Bible 6 Newton 2 Ray 1

Shakespeare 89 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 Letter to Pableof Dunciad

1

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

Boyle 14 Smith 3 Wotton 1 Fairfax 1

Hooker 10 Sandys 3 Wisemann 1 Dennis 1

South 9 L’Estrange 3 Whitgift 1 Allestree 1

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 Advertto Pope’sDunciad

1

Temple 6 Spectator 2 Rymer 1 Abbot 1

Burnet 6 Raleigh 2 Roscommon 1 ----- ---

Johnson’s practice of supplying citations in entries on prepositions is significant in tworespects. Firstly, Johnson hardly quoted from the Bible in these entries. As clarified inSection 5.1.1, Johnson quoted from the Bible in first-order frequency in entries on verbs ofhigh frequency; biblical citations within this range account for 16.6%, or 249 citations outof 1,496. Additionally, it was found in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.5.2 that he quoted from theBible 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 highfrequency and those on words for the letter L, Johnson quoted quite frequently from theBible. Such a situation may seem to justify a widely accepted perspective that Johnson wasconsistently a moralist in his selection of sources of citations (see Section 4.5.1). As far asentries on prepositions are concerned, however, the table above manifests that Johnsonhardly 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 fromDryden within the range of entries on prepositions account for 18.4%, nineteen times asmany as biblical citations. The disparity between the number of citations from Dryden andthat from Shakespeare, the source from which Johnson quoted in second-order frequency, is25; citations from Shakespeare account for 14.4% within the same range. This disparity isnever small when the situations in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of highfrequency are taken into account. As the analysis in Section 4.1.1 revealed, Johnson quotedmost often from Shakespeare in entries on words for the letter L; citations fromShakespeare account for 15.8%, or 640, and those from Dryden 11.9%, or 480, there. Inentries on verbs of high frequency, on which analyses were made in Section 5.1.2, thepercentages of citations from the two sources are almost the same; citations fromShakespeare account for 11.0%, or 165, and those from Dryden 12.2%, or 183. When thesesituations are taken into account, it can safely be said that Johnson intentionally quotedespecially frequently from Dryden in entries on prepositions.

In Webster’s case, he supplied 94 citations in entries on prepositions from the sourcesindicated in the following table.

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

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Bible 43 Waller 1 Richardson 1 Dennis 1

Dryden 11 Temple 1 Quart. Rev. 1 Denham 1

Shakespeare 6 Taylor 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 1

Ben Jonson 2 Smalridge 1 Hale 1 ----- ---

Addison 2 Rymer 1 Franklin 1 ----- ---

On the one hand, Webster’s selection of sources revealed in this table partially reflectsJohnson’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 ofbiblical citations in entries on prepositions. They account for 45.7% of all Webster’scitations within this range. In entries on words for the letter L and those on verbs of highfrequency in Webster’s Dictionary, biblical citations account for 28.8% for the former and32.6% for the latter. Additionally, Webster quoted far less frequently from the Bible thanJohnson in these two types of entries. In entries on prepositions, however, Webster’sbiblical citations greatly outnumber Johnson’s; this naturally means that Webster borrowedquite 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 Dictionaryare characterized by citations from Dryden, and those in Webster’s Dictionary by biblicalcitations. 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 willinvestigate 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 onprepositions. The letter S here means sub-entries. The figures under D-1 indicate thenumber of sub-entries in which Johnson supplied citations from Dryden together with thosefrom other sources, and those under D-2 the number of sub-entries in which he exclusivelysupplied citations from Dryden.

Table 15: Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary

Entry-words

S D-1 D-2 Entry-words

S D-1 D-2 Entry-words

S D-1 D-2

about 6 2 --- from 21 9 3 over 7 3 ---after 6 1 --- for 34 16 5 through 4 3 ---at 17 6 3 in 8 1 --- to 24 10 4before 12 6 2 into 3 1 --- upon 21 3 2below 4 1 1 of 23 9 3 with 18 5 2by 25 7 1 off 2 1 --- ----- --- --- ---down 2 0 --- on 20 11 7 ----- --- --- ---

This table shows that Johnson quoted from Dryden in 95 sub-entries out of 257 onprepositions, 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 Johnsonmake use of the citations in these two types of sub-entries? There are three answers to thisquestion; he used them to illustrate prepositional usage, to clarify the semantic concepts ofprepositions and to illustrate the synonymous definitions of prepositions. I will discuss eachof the uses below, referring to the contents of entries where he exclusively suppliedcitations from Dryden.

Firstly, it is found that Johnson often made full use of citations from Dryden inexpressing 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 suppliedcitations from Dryden.

Secondly, in the following sub-entries Johnson quoted exclusively from Dryden toindicate 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 proceedfrom 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 battlefrom 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 oraccumulation”; ‘ON. prep. 4.’, “Noting a state of progression”; ‘ON. prep. 14.’, “Notinginvocation”; ‘ON. prep. 16.’, “Noting stipulation or condition”; ‘TO. prep. 7.’, “Notingopposition”; ‘TO. preposition. 11.’, “Noting perception”; ‘TO. preposition. 16.’, “Notingobligation”; ‘UPON. prep. 19.’, “Noting particular pace”; ‘WITH. prep. 2.’, “Noting themeans”; 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 occasionallyquoted 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 mattersof common knowledge among English speaking people at Johnson’s time, and he musthave seen innumerable phrases and sentences of other authors in which the two prepositionswere used in such senses. Actually, however, Johnson singled out the sentences fromDryden to illustrate the senses of the words. There are 9 other examples of sub-entries inwhich 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 exchangefor”; ‘FOR. prep. 23.’, “In supply of; to serve in the place of”; ‘FOR. prep. 37.’, “Inconsequence 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 canbe said that the analysis strengthens the probability that Johnson was especially consciousof Dryden’s phrases and sentences in his treatment of prepositions. The probability can alsobe supported by another fact. In the entries on at and on, Johnson provided some sub-entries to show the usage of the prepositions which he seems to have thought almostpeculiar to certain authors, namely, Dryden, Sir Matthew Hale, Shakespeare and Swift. Inorder to show Hale’s, Shakespeare’s and Swift’s usage of the prepositions, Johnsonprovided only one sub-entry for each of the authors; he also quoted only once each fromthem. 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 determinationsin the house of lords. Hale.

Concerning Dryden’s usage of the prepositions, however, Johnson provided 4 sub-entriesand 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 latteraround 1300. Johnson, however, did not regard them as idioms, and solely tried to explainthe usage of at.

Thus, it becomes evident that Johnson was strongly conscious of Dryden’s phrases andsentences in his treatment of prepositions. What could have been the reasons for this? It hasgenerally been acknowledged among authorities of Johnson that he frequently quoted fromDryden 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. WilliamWimsatt (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 ofJohnson’s essay style”. Rackstraw Downes was basically in line with Wimsatt when heclaimed that:

Shakespeare is sometimes obscure because of that ‘fullness of idea which might sometimes loadhis 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 ‘nicediscriminations’ of level first introduced by Dryden, ‘those happy combinations of words whichdistinguish 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 betweenJohnson’s view of prepositional usage and his citations from Dryden. When the fact istaken 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 seriouslyconcerned about changes in the language, Dryden was an author who was especially carefulabout 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 anestablished position as a literary critic. It was in 1684 when he published the second editionof the work, sixteen years after the first edition. There are few differences between the firstedition and the second in terms of contents. What motivated Dryden to revise the work wasthe 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 heeliminated in its second edition. This means that Dryden’s view of prepositional usage haddrastically changed by the year 1684. Concerning this change, Janet Bately and IrèneSimon made significant analyses, respectively. Bately analysed how Dryden eliminatedprepositions at the ends of phrases and clauses, or ‘terminal prepositions’ in her term. Partof her analysis is worthy of quotation here in order to appreciate Dryden’s view ofprepositional usage in and after 1684. She has claimed as follows, showing some concreteexamples of Dryden’s ‘correction’ which was made in the second edition of DramaticPoesy:

When the clause is introduced by a relative pronoun, the alteration is usually a simple one, the1684 edition removing the offending word from end-position and placing it before the relativepronoun (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 atransitive 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 intransitiveverb is replaced by a transitive one (1668, p. 41 ‘a much higher degree [...] then the French Poetscan arrive at’; 1684, p. 29 ‘than the French Poets can, reasonably, hope to reach’), or that word isdeprived of its relative function, thus allowing the introduction of a relative pronoun regimen forthe ‘preposition’ (1668, A2v ‘such Arguments [...] as the fourth Act of Pompey will furnish mewith’; 1684, A2v ‘as those with which [...] furnish me’). If there is no relative word expressed, thecontact clause is either replaced by a clause with relative pronoun and the ‘preposition’ moved tothe head (1668, p. 3. ‘people you speak of’; 1684, p. 2 ‘people of whom you speak [...]’) orretained 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 ‘terminalprepositions’ 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’sDramatic 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 after1684 and that he approved of it. As observed in Section 6.1.1, Johnson had a view thatprepositions 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 himwithin the range of entries on prepositions. Out of the 48 citations, 32 are from the worksafter 1684, the year when Dryden published the second edition of his Dramatic Poesy: 1from Albion and Albanius (1685), 2 from Don Sebastian, King of Portugal (1690), 2 fromSatires of Decimus Junius Juvenalis (1693), 20 from Works of Virgil [...] Translated intoEnglish Verse (1697) and 7 from Fables, Ancient and Modern (1700). As Wimsatt hasclaimed in his statement quoted earlier in this sub-section, Johnson highly estimatedDryden’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 ofthe English Poets” (1779-1781). This work of Johnson’s was written from a literaryviewpoint, and it shows that he was generally in favour of Dryden’s works almostindependent of the point of when they were published. As to one of Dryden’s works in the1650’s, Johnson remarked as follows:

It was not till the death of Cromwell, in 1658, that he [Dryden] became a publick candidate forfame, by publishing Heroic Stanzas on the late Lord Protector; which, compared with the versesof Sprat and Waller on the same occasion, were sufficient to raise great expectations of the risingpoet. (Johnson 1779:247)

Concerning Annus Mirabilis (1667), a work in the 1660’s, Johnson (1779:251) commentedthat it “may be esteemed one of his [Dryden’s] most elaborate works”. Among theauthorities 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 thefactious 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 inentries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. This is naturally thought to signify thatJohnson 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 fromDryden’s works in and after 1684 there. This fact strongly suggests that Johnson selectedDryden’s phrases and sentences to be quoted in the entries based on his view ofprepositional usage.

Johnson’s practice of quoting from Dryden analysed above also indicates that Johnsonvery 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 Biblebe 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”, notthe English Bible or simply the Bible. For Johnson as a grammarian, the English Bible wasessentially a translation whose language was affected by other languages. I alreadydiscussed 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 itsnative idiom; this is the most mischievous and comprehensive innovation; single words may enterby thousands, and the fabrick of the tongue continue the same, but new phraseology changes muchat 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 prescriptivegrammarian who wanted to preserve the purity of the English language, it is little wonderthat he hardly quoted from the English Bible, which is a translation, there. We are nowrequired to distinguish Johnson as a grammarian who was reluctant to depend on thelanguage 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, itmay seem strange that Johnson quoted frequently from Dryden’s translation of Virgil(Publius Vergillius Maro) in entries on prepositions. However, this does not cause aproblem, because Dryden had translated Virgil’s works after his establishment of his viewof 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 biblicalcitations of his own choice in entries on prepositions. Concerning the point of how hemodified 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 theBible in three ways; supplying the citations, he indicated prepositional usage, explained thesemantic 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 toindicate 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 ofprepositions. 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 theword ‘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 satisfactorycompensation, 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 explanationswith 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 thatWebster added his invented examples to biblical citations; Webster tried to clarify the usageof 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 overthe 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 inentries on prepositions.

6.1.5 Other Characteristics of Webster’s Use of Verbal Examplesin Entries on Prepositions in His Dictionary

Though not so often, Webster borrowed citations which had been supplied in entries onprepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. In conjunction with this, there are some aspects to beinvestigated. They are Webster’s practice in borrowing Johnson’s citations and thedifference between the two lexicographers in respect of their view of the senses and usageof some prepositions. I will investigate these aspects one by one. And this observation willnecessitate reference to Webster’s invented examples supplied in entries on prepositions,which I will make collaterally.

(1) Webster’s Practice in Borrowing Johnson’s CitationsAs he did in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency, Webster basicallyshortened Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on prepositions. The following is one of theexamples:

J: ABOUT. prep. 1.Round, surrounding, encircling.

Let not mercy and truth forsake thee. Bind them about thy neck; write themupon 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 wordIs 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 asshown above. That is, Webster occasionally copied the whole of Johnson’s relatively longcitations as they are there. Such a practice of Webster’s can be observed, for instance, in thefollowing excerpts from the entry on for, the entry where Webster supplied the mostnumerous 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 thathe 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 bedevour'd. Dryd. Span. Fryar.”. K.M.]

The citations above have in common that most phrases and clauses of them include theentry-word for. Webster copied the whole of Johnson’s citations on such an occasion. Wecan see other examples in the eighth and fourteenth sub-entries on the word in hisDictionary. This practice of Webster’s cannot be regarded as accidental or irregular. Thefirst sub-entry of the entry on for partly proves it. In this sub-entry, Webster explainedprepositional usage, quoting a biblical sentence of his own choice which includes therelevant preposition 3 times:

W: FOR. prep. 1.“And Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for flocks, and for the cattle of theherds;” that is, according to the original, he gave them bread against horses, like the Gr. ���� andFr. contre, Gen. xlvii.17.

(2) Webster’s and Johnson’s View of the Senses of Some PrepositionsWebster’s citations in the entry on for also suggest that he thought of the senses of someprepositions differently from Johnson. In the following two sets of examples, citationsWebster borrowed from Johnson show that the former unified the senses of prepositionsdiscriminated 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 placeof [...].

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 otherprovocation, make war upon Christendom for the propagation of their laws; so the Christians mayat 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 readHow 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 PrepositionsWebster sometimes cross-referred to entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. Theinvestigation of this aspect is helpful in order to know how Webster’s view of prepositionalusage differs from Johnson’s. In the entry on by, for instance, Johnson commented on adifference between with and by. According to Johnson, when the two prepositions wereused to express the concept of instrumental, with should follow transitive verbs, and byintransitive verbs. He tried to make this view clear by supplying 1 citation from Dryden and2 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 anactive; 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, referringto 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 whichtheir uses may be distinguished. It is observed by Johnson that with seems rather to denote aninstrument, and by a cause; as, he killed an enemy with a sword, but he died by an arrow. But thisrule is not always observed.

Undeniably, Webster misunderstood Johnson’s intention here; instead of relating with totransitive verbs and by to intransitive verbs, Webster discussed the relation between withand an instrument and that between by and a cause. Still, this instance shows that Websterextensively referred to entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary, and how Webster’sview of with and by differs from Johnson’s. Incidentally, Webster indicated another usageof 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 onmight be substituted for by.

146

Johnson did not provide its corresponding usage note anywhere in the entry on by in hisDictionary.

(4) Webster’s Invented ExamplesThe analyses above also reveal that Webster supplied his invented examples quitefrequently in entries on prepositions, as part of which was already referred to in passing inthe analyses made so far. Actually, Webster supplied numerous invented examples in theentries. 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

Entry-words

Invented Entry-words

Invented Entry-words

Invented Entry-words

Invented

about 3 by 27 into 16 through 7after 4 down 6 of 31 to 35at 34 from 10 off 3 upon 31before 4 for 35 on 30 with 14below 2 in 18 over 12 ----- -----

This table indicates that Webster supplied 322 invented verbal examples within the range ofentries on prepositions in his Dictionary. He allocated this type of verbal example in 173sub-entries on prepositions. Specifically, Webster invented at least one verbal example foreach 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 theletter L and verbs of high frequency. This is also true about Webster. With regard to biblicalcitations, while Johnson seldom supplied them for illustrating the senses and usage ofprepositions, Webster generously supplied them for the purpose. These practices areentirely opposite to those in two other types of entries. Besides, it is also significant inentries on prepositions that Johnson quoted from Dryden especially frequently. This isthought to have resulted from Johnson’s approval of Dryden’s prepositional usage whichhad been formulated by the year 1684, 71 years before Johnson’s Dictionary. Actually, theanalyses of Johnson’s citations from Dryden within the range of entries on prepositionsreveal that the citations were frequently supplied when Johnson expressed his view ofEnglish 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 citationsfrom 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 verbalexamples. 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 usageof 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 andsometimes as adverbs. When such particles function as adverbs, they are calledprepositional adverbs or adverbial particles. As Randolph Quirk et al. (1985:1151) havepointed out, the most obvious difference between prepositions and prepositional adverbs isthat “where prepositions require a following noun phrase as a prepositional complement,there is no such requirement for adverbs”. Both Johnson and Webster recognized this basicdistinction between prepositions and prepositional adverbs. The table below shows thepractices of their treatment of prepositional adverbs; in this table, the letters S and Cindicate the number of sub-entries and citations, respectively.

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

Johnson Webster Johnson WebsterEntry-words

S C S C Entry-words

S C S C

about 6 9 4 2 in 6 12 --- ---after 2 3 1 --- off 8 10 7 2before 7 8 4 3 on 6 15 5 ---below 3 8 4 1 over 11 44 8 2by 3 7 --- --- throug

h2 5 3 ---

down 6 7 7 --- to 4 8 --- ---

This table indicates that Johnson allocated a total of 136 citations in 12 entries onprepositional adverbs, or an average of 11.2 citations per entry. As to Webster, he allocated10 citations in 9 entries, or an average of 1.1 citations per entry. With regard to the numberof sub-entries, Johnson provided 64 sub-entries in 12 entries, and Webster 43 sub-entries in9 entries, an average for Johnson 2.1 citations per sub-entry and for Webster of 0.23. Thesefigures are almost the same as those in the case of entries on prepositions; Table 12 inSection 6.1.1 indicates that Johnson supplied 2.3 citations per sub-entry on average andWebster 0.54 within the respective ranges of entries on prepositions.

148

6.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citationsin Entries on Prepositional Adverbs

The following is a table which shows how Johnson selected sources of citations for entrieson prepositional adverbs.

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

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Dryden 24 Wiseman 2 Spenser 1 Hooker 1

Shakespeare 21 Waller 2 Smith 1 Hayward 1

Locke 10 Prior 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 madelight of the Bible here. This tendency is the same as the one in entries on prepositionswhich was clarified in Section 6.1.2. To be specific, citations from Dryden within the rangeof entries on prepositional adverbs account for 17.6%, being quoted by far the mostfrequently. 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 selectedphrases and sentences. In the case of entries on prepositions, he supplied 618 citations from83 sources, that is, he quoted 7.4 times on average from one source. However, he supplied136 citations from 48 sources in entries on prepositional adverbs, quoting 2.8 times onaverage from one source here. Table 18 also shows that Johnson quoted only once eachfrom 29 sources out of the 48.

As for Webster, it is not necessary to provide a table to show his selection of sources ofcitations in entries on prepositional adverbs since the sources are quite small in number. Itwill be sufficient to indicate here that he supplied 6 citations from the Bible and 1 citationeach 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 hisgrammatical explanation in entries on prepositional adverbs. He performed this in 6 sub-entries 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 thelanguage and the aspects of English usage which he was especially interested in. I willanalyse 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, findsSuch noble pity in brave English minds. Waller.

It is manifest here that Johnson supplied a citation from Waller to support his explanationof 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 ofspeech:

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; sufferedhimself 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 whenthe fit is over. Bacon.

What the garden choicest bearsTo sit and taste, till this meridian heatBe 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 hisgrammatical 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 fortunesTo 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 meInto his pow’r: and modest wisdom plucks meFrom over-credulous haste. Shakesp. Macbeth.

St. Hierom reporteth, that he saw a satyr; but the truth hereof I will not rashly impugn, or over-boldly 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 omittedhere 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 compoundword seems to have interested Johnson greatly. Actually, he was not satisfied with onlylisting 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 doesnot accord with his practice:

Compounded or double words I have seldom noted, except when they obtain a significationdifferent 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-entrieson 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, Ishall be happy after, but hereafter; but we say, I was first made miserable by the loss, but wasafter happier.

Far be it from me, to justify the cruelties which were at first used towards them, which had theirreward soon after. Bacon.

The chief were those who, from the pit of hellRoaming to seek their prey on earth, durst fixTheir 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 theother is that of the ‘correct’ use of the same word.

The contents of the 6 sub-entries above shows that Johnson supplied a relatively smallnumber 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’; 2citations in ‘TO. adv. 3’; and 3 citations in ‘AFTER. adv. 1’. It can be said that when heprovided usage notes in entries on prepositional adverbs, he tended to put them ahead ofcitations. As to the two sub-entries on over, they show that Johnson exceptionally suppliedmany citations when he explained the usage which interested him most. Such a tendencycan be confirmed by the contents of the 2 sub-entries below; in these, Johnson providedusage 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, whichare 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 andsentences 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 everysingle sub-entry in Johnson’s Dictionary included citations:

With Johnson's work, the inductive principle becomes firmly established in English lexicographictradition. To the glosses, the compilations, and the hard word lists of his predecessors, Johnsonadded a new empiricism, a wide ranging program of reading in diverse sources. By recording fromhis reading particular instances of usage, Johnson could then proceed by induction to a generaldefinition of meaning. (Wells 1973:21)

This claim is not necessarily true about sub-entries on prepositional adverbs, as theexamples observed so far prove. Certainly, Johnson most often referred to wide range ofEnglish literature in determining senses of words as evident in entries on verbs of highfrequency. However, it is not correct to think that he did this consistently throughout theentire compilation process. Incidentally, Johnson sometimes did not supply citations fordetermining the senses of prepositional adverbs, as well as explaining their usage. Forinstance, 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 alwaysrely 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 Table17 in Section 6.2.1: after, before, down, on and over. Specifically, he provided usagenotes 9 times: twice each in the entries on after, down, on and over, and once in the entryon before. In these entries, he basically supplied invented examples in explaining the usageof their relevant words, and did not supply a single citation. This situation necessitatesclarifying two aspects of Webster’s habit of supplying verbal examples. One is his way ofsupplying invented examples, and the other is that of supplying citations. In the followinganalysis, I will firstly categorize the 9 usage notes to clarify Webster’s practice of usinginvented 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 interms 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 orfact before specified.

W: BEFORE, adv.In some of the examples of the use of before, which Johnson places under the adverb, the word is apreposition 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 toin the entry on before above. However, Webster’s statement here implies that he regardedsome 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 theusage 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, andwhen 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, supplyinginvented phrases and sentences. He discussed ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ ellipticalexpressions:

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 isknown 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 verbbeing 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 ofprepositional adverbs, the use of elliptical expressions and the distinction betweenprepositions and prepositional adverbs. And he supplied invented examples to call thedictionary reader’s attention to the points.

The remaining 2 usage notes concern compound words. Like Johnson, Webster alsoseems to have had a keen interest in this type of word. He, however, treated the words in adifferent way. In the entry on over, Webster commented on compound words with over asfollows:

W: OVER, adv.Over, in composition, denotes spreading, covering above; as in overcast, overflow; or across, as tooverhear, or above, as to overhang; or turning, changing sides, as in overturn; or more generallybeyond, implying excess or superiority, as in overact, overcome.

It was analysed in the previous sub-section that Johnson also referred to compound wordswith over with the recognition that over in them had the sense “more than enough; toomuch” only; Johnson did not mention any other senses of the word. Differently from thispractice, 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 torelevant compound words. In this sense, Webster can be said to have been more skilful thanJohnson 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. Someof the following words are of this kind, but in some of them after seems rather to be a separateword.

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 theentry on after in Webster’s Dictionary is also an introductory remark to entries on therelevant 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 Johnsonprovided 25 entries on compound words composed of after and other words, he did notrefer to them in the entry on after.

Additionally, Webster differed from Johnson in giving a grammatical account ofcompound 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 withprepositional adverbs in the section ‘Adverbs or Modifiers’ in the “Grammar” attached tohis 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, areunited with the verb in orthography. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [17th in the “Grammar”])

The discussion above concerns entries on prepositional adverbs in Webster’s Dictionarywhere he provided usage notes. It is clear now that he supplied only invented examples insuch 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 isthat he supplied citations there exclusively for the purpose of illustrating his synonymousdefinitions of entry-words.

As I mentioned at the end of Section 6.2.2, Webster supplied 6 citations from the Bibleand 4 from other sources within the range of entries on prepositional adverbs. As to theformer, he eliminated 2 biblical citations out of 4 which Johnson supplied in entries onprepositional adverbs in his Dictionary. This means that Webster borrowed 2 citations fromJohnson’s Dictionary and took 4 directly from the Bible. The principle of Webster’sselection of biblical citations for illustrating the senses of prepositional adverbs isapparently the same as the one revealed in the analyses of entries on verbs of highfrequency and prepositions. That is, he often preferred linguistic conciseness to biblicalauthority.

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 longsentence:

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, thatshe 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 hisDictionary. 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 littlehad 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 insupplying 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 sourcestrongly support the probability. All of the 4 citations consist of less than 10 words, asshown 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 borrowedfrom 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 Webstercopied 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, sincethis 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 asshort as possible, whether they may be from the Bible or other sources. This is also apractice which was observed in the case of entries on prepositions. However, differentlyfrom that case, in entries on prepositional adverbs Webster exclusively used citations forillustrating the senses, or his synonymous definitions, of related words, rather than forexemplifying their usage. When exemplifying the usage of prepositional adverbs, Websterpreferred 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 fromthose on prepositions shows that they were strongly conscious of English grammar andusage in the compilation of their dictionaries. Besides, both of them did not supply citationsoften when they indicated the usage of these words. However, this does not mean that theywere unaware of the importance of verbal examples in indicating the usage of prepositionaladverbs. In Johnson’s case, he carefully selected phrases and sentences for citations toexemplify his usage notes. When he was unable to find phrases and sentences whichaccorded with his normative criteria in the literature he referred to, he supplied inventedexamples against his usual practice. As to Webster, he supplied invented examples veryfrequently when providing usage notes for the words. Furthermore, Webster did not makeuse of a single citation for the purpose. Additionally, both Johnson and Webster also treatedcompound words in conjunction with prepositional adverbs. In this respect, Webster’s taskwas more skilfully performed than Johnson’s. While Johnson treated compound words onlyin the entry on over, Webster expounded on the words in the entry on after, as well as inthe entry on over. Besides, Webster discriminated the senses of their relevant prepositionaladverbs in more detail than Johnson, supplying adequate examples of the words.

7: Verbal Examples for Adjective-prepositionand 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 keenlyinterested in the treatment of prepositional usage, respectively. My intention in this chapterlies in detailing similarities and differences between the two lexicographers in respect oftheir view of prepositions. It is generally agreed among grammarians that solving theproblem of which prepositions collocate with which adjectives and verbs is highlyimportant. 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 ofmodern English collocational dictionaries have tackled the points. In eighteenth-centuryBritain, there were especially heated arguments surrounding this point, as Sterling Leonard(1962:112) has remarked this based on his perusal of various documents which werepublished at that time: “An extraordinary elaboration is devoted to rules on uses ofprepositions”. 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 climateamong grammarians at his time. As for Webster, it is also very probable that he, as agrammarian, paid particular attention to adjective-preposition and verb-prepositioncollocations.

According to Randolph Quirk et. al. (1989:1221), the adjective-preposition collocation islabelled “adjective complementation by a prepositional phrase”, and characterised asfollows:

The lexical bond is strongest with adjectives for which, in a given sense, the complementation isobligatory. (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/orsyntactically associated”, terming the combination a ‘prepositional verb’. I will adopt thesedefinitions here. The verb-preposition collocation is usually regarded as different from thephrasal verb in some respects. That is, in verb-preposition collocations, the relevant particlealways functions as a preposition, not as an adverb, the collocation retaining the originalsenses of the relevant verb, and the verb preceding the preposition is usually intransitiveexcept for a small number of cases. With this recognition in mind, I will survey howJohnson and Webster treated the two types of collocations and supplied verbal examples forthem.

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 sub-entries for giving guidance on the usage of the two types of collocations, often supplyingverbal examples. The following table shows the result of the analyses. Examples have beencollected with reference to Randolph Quirk, et. al.’s relevant discussion (1989:433 and1150-1233) and their treatment in the OALD; 44 examples will be adequate for theconcerns of this chapter. The column ‘Adjectives/Verbs’ indicates relevant adjectives andverbs. The column ‘Prepositions’ indicates the prepositions which Johnson or Websterclaimed to be regularly used with these verbs and adjectives. J and W refer to Johnson’sDictionary and Webster’s, respectively. The figures under J and W show the number ofrelevant citations; those in parentheses indicate how many invented examples Webstersupplied for relevant collocations.

Table 19: Verbal Examples Supplied for Adjective-prepositionand Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Adjective/Verbs Prepositions J W Adjective/Verbs Prepositions J W

abstain from 3 --- consist in/of --- 2account for --- 0(1) count upon 1 ---acquaint of --- 0(1) delighted with --- 1act upon --- 0(2) depend from/on/

upon--- 1(5)

afraid of 2 1 disgust,disgusted

at/with/from 3 0(2)

agree to/with --- 0(2) glad of/at/with 5 2(1)angry at/with 3 2 impatient of/at/for/

under--- 0(6)

apologize for 2 0(1) independent on/of/from 2 0apply to 4 --- insist on --- 0(2)argue with/against 2 --- intent to/on --- 1ashamed of 3 2 invest in/with 3 0(3)associate with 0 0(1) mad on/after/of/

for3 2(2)

averse from/to 5 0 object to/against 6 ---aware of --- 0 pleased in/with --- 0believe in/on 3 2 prefer above/

before/to5 2

capable of 1 0(2) proud of 3 0certain of --- 2 reason with --- 2(1)comment upon/on 5 0(1) recover of/from --- 1compare to/with 4 1(4) sick of --- 1(3)compatible with/to --- 3 suffer with/from --- 0(4)concerned with/in --- 0(2) work on --- 0conscious to/of 2 1(2) worthy of 3 2(1)

159

This table indicates that Johnson commented on 24 collocations out of 44, supplying 73citations in all. In the “Preface” and the “Grammar” to his Dictionary, Johnson did not referto the collocations in particular. However, this does not mean that Johnson had not paidmuch attention to them in compiling his Dictionary. In the Plan, which had been writtenbefore 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 onlylearned 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 sailorperished with hunger; and every man acquainted with our language would be offended by a changeof these particles, which yet seem originally assigned by chance, there being no reason to be drawnfrom grammar or reason why a man may not, with equal propriety, be said to dye with a wound, orperish 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 ourpower to have recourse to any established laws of speech, but we must remark how the writers offormer 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 ofthe language at the time when he had written the Plan, and he had intended to solve therelevant problem through historical investigations of the language. The fact that he did notrefer to the collocations in the “Preface” and the “Grammar” in his Dictionary, as well assupplying a relatively small number of citations for them, suggests the probability that heabandoned this intention in the end. Otherwise, he may have elaborated some other methodfor 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 hewas not interested in them. Table 19 reflects the fact that Webster treated more relevantcollocations than Johnson; he gave comments on 39, 15 more than Johnson. In a sense, itimplies the probability that Webster was more concerned with them than Johnson. As tocitations, 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 indicatedin the following table.

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

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Dryden 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 Collocationsin Johnson’s Dictionary (continued)

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Pope 3 Hooker 2 Sprat 1 Bentley 1

Milton 3 Clarendon 2 South 1 ----- ---

Addison 3 Bacon 2 Sidney 1 ----- ---

Although Johnson supplied a small number of citations, the table above reveals that hepractised as he did in treating prepositions and prepositional adverbs; his treatment of thetwo 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 Collocationsin Webster’s Dictionary

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Bible 13 Watts 1 Broom 1Dryden 5 Milton 1 Bacon 1Shakespeare 2 L’Estrange 1 Sources

unidenti-fied

6

When this table is compared with Table 20, it is revealed that Webster quoted from theBible more frequently than Johnson in spite of the fact that the former supplied a smallernumber of citations than the latter. It was clarified in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.1.2 that Webstersupplied a far smaller number of biblical citations than Johnson in entries on words for theletter L and verbs of high frequency. Contrary to this practice, Webster supplied a largernumber of biblical citations than Johnson in entries on prepositions and prepositionaladverbs, 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 ofadjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations resembles that for the treatment ofprepositions 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 whichboth Johnson and Webster provided usage notes. In this section, I will adopt a samplingmethod and compare the contents of 3 sets of their sub-entries, namely on angry, ashamedand prefer. In these, Johnson and Webster agreed with each other about the prepositions tobe 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 verb-preposition collocations, especially Webster’s use of biblical citations. Besides, the taskwill also provide a background for the next step; in Section 7.4, I will analyse sub-entries inwhich 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, andso 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 manyscoundrels 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 itsrelevant prepositions. This is his usual practice in treating adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations, and it clearly shows that Johnson was fully aware of the value ofcitations to illustrate the usage of the language; it provides counter-evidence to the viewthat Johnson mainly supplied citations from a literary viewpoint, which was referred to inSections 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 angrywith should be used for a person and angry at for a thing, as Johnson had done. In thisrespect, Webster may have imitated Johnson’s practice. However, while Johnson quotedfrom 3 sources (Shakespeare, the Bible and Swift), Webster exclusively quoted from theBible. Additionally, Webster’s citations are short and structurally simple as compared withJohnson’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 ofGod, or of any practices enjoined by it. Taylor’s Holy Living.

One wou’d have thought she would have stirr’d; but stroveWith modesty, and was asham’d to move. Dryd. Fables.

This I have shadowed, that you may not be ashamed of that hero, whose protection youundertake. 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 orindecorous conduct, or by the exposure of some gross errors or misconduct, which the person isconscious 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 citationare shorter and structurally simpler than Johnson’s.

Then, in the entry on prefer, Johnson provided following 3 sub-entries for an illustrationof 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 seenthat he collected sentences to be quoted under those indications. It seems that such sub-entries 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 thananother; 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 citationsfrom 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 treatingadjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations, providing special sub-entries forthem. They also imply the probability that Johnson had collected phrases and sentences tobe supplied in such sub-entries beforehand. As for Webster, he seems to have tried toillustrate the use of the collocations by means of biblical phrases and sentences which aresimple and possible in terms of structure. In addition, the sets of sub-entries analysed aboveprove that Webster did not necessarily follow Johnson’s practice even when his view of thecollocations 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 shouldbe used for at least 3 adjectives and 3 verbs within the range of collocations indicated inTable 19 in section 7.2. The adjectives are averse, independent and mad, and the verbs arebelieve, comment and invest. In this section, I will analyse six discrepancies between thelexicographers and their respective use of verbal examples.

(1) averse from vs. averse toThe problem of which preposition should be used for averse caused a heated argumentamong grammarians throughout the eighteenth century and at the beginning of thenineteenth. According to Sterling Leonard (1962:133 and 294), while Johnson and Lowthclaimed that from was appropriate, other grammarians and men of letters, such as GeorgeCampbell, 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 thanLeonard. 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 reasonfor the argument to Johnson’s and Lowth’s consciousness of the etymology of averse. Inthis regard, the entry on the word in the OED reads that averse from was first used inEnglish in the translation of the Bible. One of the relevant passages in the AV is thefollowing:

[...] ye pull off the robe with the garment, fro them that passe by securely, as men auerse fromwarre. 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 senseof 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 inwhich Swift is quoted as indicating the ‘wrong’ combination and Clarendon is quoted inboth sub-entries.

Opposing Johnson’s view as expressed in the sub-entries, Webster tried to prove thataverse 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 includesthe 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 mindexerted from an object. Averse expresses a less degree of opposition in the mind, than detestingand abhorring.

Webster’s explanation here cannot be regarded as a mere objection derived from his senseof 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 senseaccepted widely at his time, not on its historically original sense. The description in theOED seems to support this claim. That is, the sub-entry ‘averse a. and sb.A.4.b.’ in theOED 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 considerationthat 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 thesense 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 indicatedby hostile, contrary, repugnant, hostility, opposition, dislike” in this description hasresemblance to part of Webster’s statement above, which was made more than 60 yearsbefore 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 ofother collocations. One example is disgust from. He provided the following two sub-entrieson 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 thesecond. 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, orwith 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 tothink of adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations in terms of the etymologiesof 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 mayimply that he attached relatively more importance to the usage of words. In this regard, thelast sentence in the entry on impatient in his Dictionary seems to signify his basic view ofadjective-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 ofthe mail; impatient under evils of any kind. The proper use of these particles can be learnt only bypractice or observation.

(2) independent on vs. independent ofConcerning 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 todepend on, and consequently dependent on.

Creation must needs infer providence, and God’s making the world irrefragably proves that hegoverns it too; or that a being of dependent nature remains nevertheless independent upon him inthat respect. South’s Sermons.

Since all princes of independent government are in a state of nature, the world never waswithout men in that state. Locke.

The town of St. Gaul is a protestant republick, independent of the abbot, and under theprotection of the cantons. Addis.

The second citation in which any preposition is put after independent seems to have beensupplied to illustrate the sense of the word and only the first and third citations seem toillustrate the usage of the collocation.

In contrast to Johnson’s view expressed in the sub-entry above, Webster stated thefollowing:

166

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

When the opinions of the two lexicographers are compared, it can safely be said thatJohnson attached more importance to analogy, and Webster more usage. The OED seems tobe in favour of Webster’s view again. In the entry ‘independent. a. and sb.’, it reads that ofis the appropriate preposition for independent and that on, upon and from are earlier usages.

(3) mad for vs. mad afterConcerning the prepositions used with mad, Johnson provided the following sub-entry, inwhich 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 theobject 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 containsmad 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 ownview. This may be regarded as an example which shows that Webster did not alwaysapprove of biblical phrases and sentences.

(4) believe in vs. believe on/uponJohnson 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 believeupon. 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 tocertainty; in others, more doubt is implied. It is often followed by in or on, especially in thescriptures. 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 fullconfidence in, to rest upon with faith. “To them gave he power to become the sons of God, even tothem 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 samesense. At the same time, in respect of the use of citations, it is notable that Webster replacedJohnson’s from 2 Chron. by one from John. While believe in appears only once in theformer, it appears twice in the latter. Besides, the latter is short and structurally simpler ascompared with the former.

(5) comment upon vs. comment onJohnson 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 thingexplained.

Following these remarks, he supplied 4 citations to illustrate his interpretation: citationsfrom Shakespeare and Sir William Temple in which comment upon is included, and thosefrom 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 explainparticular passages; to explain; to expound; to annotate; followed by on. We say, to comment on anauthor or on his writings.

According to the contents of the relevant sub-entry (‘comment sb.2a.A.’) in the OED, eitherupon or on can be used with comment, and there is no difference between the sense ofcomment upon and that of comment on. However, Webster, who seems to have preferred onto upon, remarked in his entry on on that “Upon is used in the same sense with on, oftenwith elegance, and frequently without necessity or advantage”. It was discussed in Section4.5.6 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 commentupon may be regarded as another piece of evidence that proves his preference for languageas a medium of communication, as discussed in Section 1.5.3.

168

(6) invest in vs. invest withJohnson 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 investThe rising world of waters. Milton.

Let thy eyes shine forth in their full lustre;Invest them with thy loveliest smiles, put onThy choicest looks. Denham’s Sophy.

In this sub-entry, Johnson did not differentiate invest in and invest with. Webster’s practicediffered from this. He provided a sub-entry for each of the collocations and illustrated theirusage 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 inpoetry and elevated prose, not in colloquial discourse.

7. To clothe money in something permanent or less fleeting; as, to invest money in funded orbank 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 oradorn.

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 excelledover 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 ofadjective-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 sametable 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, impatientof/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 inprepositional usage. The following are some examples of sub-entries in which his newly-added 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 thecollocations genuinely in the light of English usage, irrelevant of his faith.

To illustrate newly added descriptions of the collocations, Webster occasionally madeuse 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 beardLong 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 beardLong icicles depend. Dryden.

170

7.6 Generalization of the Analysis

Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples supplied for the treatment of adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations reflect their view of prepositions well. Interms of their sources of citations, Johnson quoted from Dryden most frequently, as he didin entries on prepositions; such a practice is not seen in entries on words for the letter L andverbs of high frequency. It may safely be said that this fact ensures the probability thatJohnson regarded Dryden’s prepositional usage as more sophisticated than Shakespeare’sand that of other men of letters.

As to Webster, he quoted from the Bible more often than Johnson, as he did in entries onprepositions; he did not do this in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of highfrequency. However, in Webster’s case, it should be noted that he modified a biblicalphrase 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 werefamiliar to the readers of his Dictionary rather than considering prepositional usage in theBible as ideal.

How, then, did Webster’s selection of prepositions differ from Johnson’s? As hisadherence to from for averse shows, Johnson tended to select prepositions based on theetymologies of relevant words. In contrast to this, Webster, although he had enthusiasticallystudied 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 Section3.2.2, although Webster did not totally abandon prescriptivism as his treatment of investin/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-prepositioncollocations. That is, Stefania Nuccorini (2003:366-387) has analysed eight dictionaries ofEnglish 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 andillustrative phrases, as well as its information on grammatical collocations in the sense ofboth 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. IfNuccorini's analyses have been correctly made, such characteristics in the two dictionariesare also included in Johnson's and Webster's dictionaries, as observed so far.

In addition, Nuccorini (2003:367) has further remarked that “often the dictionary-intended 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 anadvanced user, a linguist and a translator) who might adopt different perspectives”,referring to modern English collocational dictionaries. On the assumption that this opinionis correct, such a situation is seen as early as in the difference between Johnson andWebster in their view of some verb-preposition and adjective-preposition collocations.

8: Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatmentof 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 usingverbal examples in their treatment of modal auxiliaries. Both of them frequently referred tothe 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 themfrom ‘marginal modals’, dare, need, ought to and used to. The modal auxiliariesexclusively function as auxiliary verbs without the help of the preposition to, while‘marginal modals’ often require the preposition and can sometimes be used as principalverbs. In conjunction with modal auxiliaries, the concept of what is termed ‘modality’ hasto be taken into account. With regard to this term, I will adopt the definition given by Quirket al.:

At its most general, modality may be defined as the manner in which the meaning of a clause isqualified so as to reflect the speaker’s judgment of the likelihood of the proposition it expressesbeing true. As with terms like present and past, this semantic definition makes only an imperfectmatch with the correspondingly-named formal category, that of modal auxiliary verbs. None theless, it will serve to indicate in general terms the function which these verbs perform in thelanguage. (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 intrinsichuman control over events, and(b) Those such as ‘possibility’, ‘necessity’, and ‘prediction’, which do not primarily involvehuman control of events, but do typically involve human judgment of what is or is not likely tohappen. (Quirk et al. 1985:219)

Both Johnson and Webster treated all modal auxiliaries in their dictionaries. However, thereare problems to be solved before starting the analysis of their treatment of the words. Thatis, 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 modalauxiliaries. Besides, they had different opinions from each other about what parts of speechthe words belonged to. Therefore, it is necessary here to recognize how Johnson andWebster thought of the words. The table below shows the situation. In this table, thedescriptions in frames are taken from relevant entries in their dictionaries.

172

Table 22: Johnson’s and Webster’s View of Modal Auxiliaries

Entry-words Johnson’s Dictionary Webster’s Dictionary

can v.n. v.i.could the imperfect preterite of can. The past tense of can, according to

our customary arrangement ingrammar.

may auxiliary verb. verb aux.might the preterite of may. pret. of may.must verb imperfect. v.i. It is used as an auxiliary verb.shall v. defective v.i., verb auxiliaryshould v.n. The preterit of shall, but now used

as an auxiliary verb, either in thepast time or conditional present.

will v.a. v.t.would The preterite of will. pret. of will.

This table indicates that both Johnson and Webster basically regarded can as an intransitiveverb and will as a transitive verb. As to must, shall and should, their views differ from eachother. Additionally, their use of grammatical terms make the problem more complicated.For instance, Johnson used the term ‘v. defective’ in the entry on shall. Moderngrammarians 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 hasespecially detailed the use of defective verbs. As to Johnson’s definition of the term, heprovided 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, moderngrammarians 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 isnecessary to take into account changes in the language. As mentioned above, Johnsonthought that will was basically a transitive verb; he even added the preposition to to indicatethe entry-word of its relevant entry as ‘To WILL’. This is because will was also used as aprincipal verb at Johnson’s time. Johnson provided 5 sub-entries on will, but in only 1 ofthe 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 treatedwill as a modal auxiliary. Because of this fact, it becomes required to select sub-entriesrelevant to the purpose of this section, instead of trying to observe the whole of entries onrelevant words which may cover more than modal auxiliaries.

There is one more problem. When such relevant sub-entries are browsed through, bothJohnson and Webster are seen to have depended quite heavily on invented examples toillustrate the usage of modal auxiliaries. The degree of their dependence on this type ofexample in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries is apparently far higher than that in entries onprepositions and prepositional adverbs. For this reason, in producing the table of thefrequency 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 asrefer to the number of citations. In the following table, the letters S and C indicate thenumber of relevant sub-entries and citations, and figures in parentheses that of inventedexamples.

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

Johnson Webster Johnson Webster

Entry-words S C S C Entry-words S C S Ccan 4 4(5) 10 9(20) shall 7 3(6) 7 2(20)could 1 2 10 1(16) should 6 7(4) 7 2(12)may 5 7(1) 4 2(9) will 1 0(5) 1 0(5)might 1 1 2 0(1) would 8 23(3) 1 0(8)must 1 5 2 1(4) ----- --- --- --- ---

This table reveals several notable facts. In Johnson’s case, the number of citations suppliedin the sub-entries on shall is smaller than that of the sub-entries. This means that Johnsondid not supply citations in each of the sub-entries, signifying that he did not necessarilyexplain 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 andwould; especially in the sub-entries on can, shall and will, invented examples outnumbercitations.

Actually, Johnson heavily depended on invented examples rather than citations inexplaining the senses and usage of modal auxiliaries, and did not supply citations in morethan half of the relevant sub-entries. This will be clarified in the following sub-sections, butit may be beneficial to refer to some widely-accepted opinions on Johnson’s citationsbeforehand which will be proved incorrect. For instance, James Murray, with a belief thatJohnson had supplied citations or at least indicated the sources of citations in all entries andsub-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 didnot 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 providedillustrative quotations systematically for all (or at least the vast bulk) of words entered. (Osselton1995:59)

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”, itwill 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 theexplanation of the senses and usage of modal auxiliaries.

As for Webster, Table 23 indicates that he supplied 94 invented examples and 17citations in total in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries. The table also illustrates that Webstersupplied more citations than Johnson in the treatment of can, showing that Webster was notalways 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 thatWebster’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, Johnsonquoted 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. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Shakespeare 8 Sidney 3 Swift 1 Grew 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 ofcitations. As for Webster, he quoted 17 phrases and sentences from 5 sources: 13 from theBible, and 1 each from Dryden, a translation of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius forwhich the translator is not indicated, Bournet whose first name is indeterminable, andAddison. It is seen here that Webster borrowed few of Johnson’s citations in treating modalauxiliaries, very unlike the treatment of other types of words analysed so far in precedingchapters.

8.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entrieson the Modal Auxiliaries Shall and Will

As revealed in the analysis in the previous sub-section, both Johnson and Webster have incommon that they frequently supplied invented examples in sub-entries on modalauxiliaries. However, they are observed to have handled the words in various ways;respective sub-entries reflect the lexicographers’ unique view of the usage of relevantwords. This means that the usual practices in their ways of supplying verbal examples inthe sub-entries can only be determined with some difficulty. For this reason, I will hereafterprovide 4 sub-sections to proceed with the analyses, taking account of the modalities ofeach modal auxiliary. Specifically, I will analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment ofshall 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 highfrequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. That is, in addition to depending little oncitations in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries, Johnson occasionally provided detailedintroductory remarks in them, which are rarely seen in entries on other types of words in hisDictionary. This can be said especially about the entry on shall. In the introductory remarksin the entry, Johnson referred to the tense which shall denotes, quoting a sentence fromChaucer, 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 thefuture tense. The French use devoir, dois, doit, in the same manner, with a kind of futuresignification; and the Swedes have skall, and the Islanders skal, in the same sense. It has no tensesbut shall future, and should imperfect.

Following such words, Johnson provided 7 sub-entries which are all related to shall as amodal auxiliary. In 5 sub-entries out of the 7, Johnson illustrated the usage of the word withinvented 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 ofthe 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 youHis 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 isfounded; 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, shallcertainly belong to him. Hammond’s Fundamentals.

Johnson must have been careful in selecting these citations. This is clear from the fact thatthe entry-word shall is included in almost all clauses of the citations. Besides, two of thethree citations are from poetry. In the introductory remarks on the entry for the word, wherehe 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 usageof shall among poets:

The explanation of shall, which foreigners and provincials confound with will, is not easy; and thedifficulty is increased by the poets, who sometimes give to shall an emphatical sense of will ; but Ishall 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’sconsciousness as revealed in the comments. Incidentally, the comments indicate thatJohnson 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 followingopinion 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 ofsub-entries which follow the opinion is important to know Webster’s view of the word. In 4out of 7 sub-entries which he provided, Webster stated the following, supplying inventedexamples 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 takeplace.

2. In the second and third persons, shall implies a promise, command or determination. “Youshall receive your wages,” “he shall receive his wages,” imply that you or he ought to receivethem; 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, asksfor information of another’s intention.

4. But after another verb, shall, in the third person, simply foretells. He says that he shall leavetown 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. Thecontents of these 4 sub-entries clearly shows that Webster focused on the usage andmodalities of shall. In this respect, Webster treated the word almost the same as Johnsondid. However, it can also be said that Webster’s account of the word is more detailed thanJohnson’s.

177

The significance of Webster’s treatment of shall lies not only in the length of hisexplanation. Webster referred to the use of shall in the subjunctive mood, which wasdifferent 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 shallsay, they shall say.

This sub-entry also shows that he was conscious of person in the use of shall, and heillustrated 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 anetymologist. At the beginning of the first sub-entry in the entry, Webster quoted 2 sentencesfrom Old English literature, which are not seen in the corresponding entry in Johnson’sDictionary, 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. Followingthe remarks above, he stated:

We still use shall and should before another verb in the infinitive, without the sign to; but thesignification of shall is considerably deflected from its primitive sense. It is now treated as a mereauxiliary 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 cansafely be said that Webster as an etymologist and Webster as a descriptive grammarian isintegrated here in Webster as a lexicographer.

With regard to the entry on will, out of 5 sub-entries Johnson provided there, only oneconcerns 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 exampleswhich 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 theword as a modal auxiliary, as well. This may give the impression that Webster followedJohnson’s practice in treating the modal auxiliary. However, the fact is that Websteruniquely exercised his ingenuity in the sub-entry, and even commented on the modality ofthe word which Johnson did not refer to. The following is the contents of the sub-entry inWebster’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 acitation there. And he was also conscious of person relevant to the use of the word. Theseare almost exactly the same as Johnson’s case. At the same time, however, Webster dividedthe 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, usingthe 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 indicatedthat will denoted choice and necessity.

The modal auxiliaries shall and will basically function to express simple future andvolitional future. In the sub-entries on shall, Johnson referred to the two types of future, butin 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. Thisindicates that Webster’s explanation of the usage of the two modal auxiliaries is moreelaborate 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, Websteralso 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 inventedexamples rather than depending on citations. In spite of such efforts, however, hisgrammatical consciousness hardly matched up to Webster’s, as far as the two words areconcerned.

8.1.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entrieson the Modal Auxiliaries Should and Would

As analysed in Section 8.1.1, Johnson indicated that should was an intransitive verb, but hewas also fully aware of the word as a modal auxiliary. He treated the functions of the wordas a modal auxiliary in 6 out of 8 sub-entries. The following are contents of 5 sub-entriesout 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 thesubjunctive mood, or the ‘conjunctive mood’ in his term, and that he illustrated thecomments with invented examples, not citations. In the sixth sub-entry, he mentioned theuse 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 youThan safety should. Ben. Johnson’s Catiline.

Some praises come of good wishes and respects, when by telling men what they are, theyrepresent 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 andnumber. That is, the subjects of should in the citations can be divided into 3 types: firstperson singular, third person singular and third person plural. It is obvious here thatJohnson tried to show that the modality of should does not vary according to person andnumber of its subjects.

As to Webster, he provided introductory remarks in the entry on should, which Johnsonhad 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 orfuture time conditionally. In the second and third persons, it denotes obligation or duty, as in thefirst example above.

This statement shows that Webster paid attention to tense and person in relation to the useof 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 expressedwith 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 nearlyequivalent to ought; you ought to go, it is your duty, you are bound to go. [See Shall.] Withemphasis, 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, towhich he added his own paraphrase, is also significant. This citation was copied from theentry on should in Johnson’s Dictionary. As already revealed in this sub-section, Johnsonsupplied the citation to show the usage of the word in relation to number. Webster madeuse of it to illustrate his explanation of the case where the principal verb is omitted aftershould. This also indicates Webster’s interest in elliptical expressions, which I discussed inSections 5.1.4 and 6.2.4.

Webster further treated the use of should for the denotation of ‘actual existence’; this useof 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 acondition 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 usingshould, the speaker entertains, as it were, some ‘putative’ world, recognizing that it maywell exist or come into existence”. Though brief and limited, Webster’s description of theuse 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 treatshould only in its own entry. In the entry on shall, he provided 2 sub-entries for theexplanation 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,/ Thoushouldst,/ He should,/ You should, have paid the bill on demand; it was my duty, your duty, hisduty 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 arrivewithin 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 suchuse of should anywhere in entries on should and shall. Moreover, Webster detailed the useof should in relation to person in the 2 sub-entries there. Certainly, Johnson diligently triedto 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 comparedwith 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, toillustrate the comments; he supplied 3 invented examples and 2 citations in total. Thefollowing is his comment on mood which the word denotes; he supplied one citation withit:

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 exampleshere, 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 asfollows:

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 assuddenly 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, hisaccount of the word is never less detailed than Johnson’s. Additionally, Webster’srecognition 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.” Thisform 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 examplesare 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 beunderstood to mean what delights or molests us - ”; that is, if it should be asked what I mean bypleasure 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 ofsomething not expressed.

The core of this passage lies in the citation “By pleasure and pain [...] what delights ormolests us -”. Actually, it is evident that Webster borrowed this citation from Johnson. Inthe fourth sub-entry on would in his Dictionary, Johnson had supplied the followingcitation from John Locke to illustrate the definition “Was or am resolved; wish or wishedto”:

By pleasure and pain I would be understood to signify, whatsoever delights or molests us, whetherfrom 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 somethingwhich Johnson only vaguely referred to. The relevant passage above shows that Websteralso added his own paraphrase to the citation.

Even when Webster did not provide a usage note, there are cases where the differencebetween Webster’s view of the modal auxiliary and Johnson’s are revealed by verbalexamples. For instance, Johnson provided a sub-entry on would to show the ‘wrong’ use ofthe word. At the beginning of this sub-entry, Johnson stated the following, supplying someinvented 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 gradualcorruption 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 goodauthours, but ought not to be imitated.

This sub-entry suggests that Johnson thought that it was wrong to use would as a substitutefor the principal verb wish. Under this statement, he supplied 9 citations in total to showhow would had been used ‘incorrectly’: 2 each from Shakespeare and Dryden, and 1 eachfrom Bacon, Ben Jonson, Samuel Daniel, Milton and Allestree. For instance, citations fromMilton and Allestree are as follows:

Would thou hadst hearken’d to my words, and stay’dWith me, as I besought thee, when that strangeDefuse 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 ofwhat 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 andsentences from his Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety (1667). He quoted 19 times fromthis source within the range of entries on words for the letter L (see Section 4.1.1) and 2times in entries on verbs of high frequency (see Section 5.1.2), but never did he censurephrases and sentences from this source. This is probably because Johnson approved of thecontents of the work. His critical attitude about the sentence in the entry on would wasmanifestly caused by his view of the language. It can be said, therefore, that Johnsoncarefully 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 fromJohnson, however, Webster was not critical of the use. He seems to have regarded the useas 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 wehad 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. Theyalso 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 wordsshould and would based on their grammatical knowledge. Johnson diligently suppliedinvented 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-moodwhich the two words denote. He also supplied invented examples to illustrate his commentson 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 wholeof Johnson’s explanation about should and would, but also expounded on various usage ofthe words which Johnson did not refer to. Especially in sub-entries on should, Webstermentioned the use of the word which Quirk et al. termed the ‘putative should’. Webstersupplied invented examples to illustrate the use, as he often did in explaining other uses ofshould and would.

8.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entrieson 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 andtheir ways of supplying verbal examples in relevant sub-entries. Concerning their treatmentof 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. Quitedifferently from the case of shall, will, should and would, he almost exclusively treated thesenses, not the usage, of may. Johnson provided few usage notes and few inventedexamples in the sub-entries on may. Instead, he supplied 1 or 2 citations in each of the 5sub-entries.

184

Strangely, Webster also treated may like Johnson did. Revealing his talent as agrammarian 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 theoptative 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. Itwas 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 livehappily”. Johnson had supplied the following citation in the fifth sub-entry on may in hisDictionary:

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 knowingwhether 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 slightlyexcelled 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 thebeginning 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 potentialmood; 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 senseof the word, in which can is defined as “To be able; to have power”. However, in thesecond 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 ofrelevant usage are documented. In the third sub-entry on can, Johnson indicated adifference 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 wasrather superficial. That is, there is a probability that he tried to compare the usage of mayand can in the entry on can. The fourth sub-entry on can supports this probability. Johnsonexplained 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 verbpassive; as, I can do it; it may be done.

Here again, Johnson exclusively supplied invented examples, not depending on a singlecitation.

Compared with Johnson’s practice, Webster seems to have paid little attention to theusage of can. He provided a brief usage note of the word at the beginning of its relevantentry. 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 thephrases, 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 unclearwhy Webster provided a usage notes whose contents seems to be applicable to other modalauxiliaries here. However, it seems clear that Webster did not detail the usage of cananyway. As to verbal examples, he supplied 2 citations in its ninth sub-entry, whichgenuinely 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 preteritesof 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; hemerely indicated that might is the preterite of may.

As for Webster, he also regarded the two modal auxiliaries could and might as merepreterites 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 sameremarks, 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-entrieson the word, and all of them concern could as nothing other than the genuine preterite ofcan; 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 ofmight 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, thepossibility and permission. Concerning the former, they (1985:223) claimed that “the mostcommon meaning of may [= possibility] is different from the possibility sense of can” andthat “To paraphrase may, we use it is possible by a that-clause, rather than an infinitiveclause”. As to the latter, they (1985:223) stated that “may is more formal and less commonthan 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 mayand can than Webster. Though not discussing the usage of may in detail in the entry on theword, he tried to expound the differences between may and can in the entry on can. Hesupplied invented examples, not citations, for the purpose. Webster did not detail the usageof the two modal auxiliaries as Johnson. In this sense, Johnson was unusually superior toWebster as far as the treatment of the two modal auxiliaries is concerned. As to theirtreatment of might and could, little difference can be observed between the twolexicographers; both Johnson and Webster did not expound on the usage specific to thewords.

8.1.5 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entrieson 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 personsand things.

This note shows that Johnson was conscious of person and tense in relation to the modalauxiliary. 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 quotedabove. In the citation from Shakespeare, must is used with third person singular; in thatfrom Waller with first person plural; in that from Grew with third person singular; and inthat from Addison with which, a relative pronoun denoting ‘Every father and brother of theconvent’.

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 anauxiliary verb, and has no variation to express person, time or number”. However, hisexplanation of the usage of the word is more detailed than Johnson’s. That is, Websterpointed out 2 modalities which must denotes, supplying invented examples. In the first sub-entry 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 sleepfor refreshment. We must submit to the laws or be exposed to punishment. A bill in a legislativebody 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 benoted concerning the word. Johnson supplied citations selected for the purpose. As forWebster, he also indicated the modalities of must and supplied invented examples, as wellas 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 usualpractices in their treatment of the words can hardly be summarized. However, it can at leastbe said that they were strongly conscious of grammatical categories in the treatment of thewords. They were especially so in treating will, shall, would and should. As to the use ofverbal examples, Johnson supplied few citations in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries, andmade full use of invented examples there, instead. Johnson could have supplied numerouscitations from English literature in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries as he did in entries onverbs of high frequency, but he did not practice in this way. In this respect, James Murray’sand Noel Osselton’s perspective which was referred to in Section 8.1.1 does not apply tosub-entries on modal auxiliaries in Johnson’s Dictionary. Certainly, he occasionallysupplied citations, but in most cases this was done based on his own view of the usage ofmodal auxiliaries, and he did not deduce the usage of the words from the citations. As forWebster, he was especially dependent on invented examples. As confirmed at the beginningof 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 totense, 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; heusually 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, doand have which modern grammarians call primary verbs. Concerning the semanticcharacteristics of these verbs as auxiliaries, Randolph Quirk et al. have given the followingdefinition, which I will accept in this section:

Semantically, the primary verbs as auxiliaries share an association with the basic grammatical verbcategories 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 functionsas a sign of emphasis. In addition to such varied characteristics, their inflections are closelyassociated with number and person of their subjects. Both Johnson and Webster treatedsuch words in their dictionaries. In the preceding section, it was revealed that they suppliedverbal examples to illustrate the usage of modal auxiliaries, using grammatical terms. Theprimary verb is also a type of word which often requires the use of grammatical terms in itstreatment. Therefore, it is expected that the analysis of their treatment of primary verbsfurther shows how the lexicographers supplied verbal examples, paying attention togrammatical categories.

Concerning the table of the number of sub-entries and verbal examples, as well as that ofthe sources of citations, I will not provide them in this section. Because of the intricatecharacteristics of primary verbs mentioned above, it would be difficult to show the generaltendencies 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 inentries on the infinitives of the words in their dictionaries. In this task, I will exclusivelydeal with their treatment of primary verbs as auxiliaries. The reason for this is that theanalysis of their treatment of principal verbs has already been made in Section 5.1 where Iinvestigated how Johnson and Webster treated verbs of high frequency. Then, after dealingwith entries on the infinitives of primary verbs in this way, I will move on to the analysis ofJohnson’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 toillustrate 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 leesIs 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 tothem the passive form; as, he has been disturbed.

In this way, Johnson illustrated the role of be in the formation of the simple present passivevoice. In the citation which he supplied is appears twice, supporting his explanation well. Incontrast to this practice, Webster supplied an invented example which indicates the use ofbe in the present perfect passive voice, implying the possibility that the formation of thepassive voice with the use of be is applicable in tenses other than the simple present. As tobe 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 asign of emphasis, and later its function in the formation of the negative and interrogativesentences. 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 thesub-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 didlove, or, I loved.

The Turks do acknowledge God the father, creator of heaven and earth, being the first person inthe 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 commandor earnest request; do before the verb as the expletive; do for simple emphasis; and do as asign of opposition. These types were apparently deduced from his extensive reading ofEnglish 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 4types. This indicates that Johnson had his unique view of do as a sign of emphasis. Whenthis taken into account, it can safely be said that he supplied citations which accorded withhis 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 forthe 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 ofemphasis; [1] corresponds to do in the vehement command or earnest request, [2] do forsimple 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 inJohnson’s Dictionary, and most of Webster’s invented examples are identical withJohnson’s. However, it is not that Webster added nothing to Johnson’s view. Differentlyfrom Johnson, Webster indicated that do used in the imperative should be uttered withspecial stress in [1].

Quite differently from the case of do as a sign of emphasis, Johnson did not refer to dofor 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 thosewhich were supplied for the explanation of do as a sign of emphasis. However, in the 45citations, neither a negative sentence with do+not nor an interrogative sentence beginningwith do is included. The following passage in the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionaryclearly shows that Johnson was fully aware of the importance of do in the formation of thenegative and interrogative sentences; in verbal examples in his “Grammar”, Johnson wrotewords 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 theword 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 thepersons; as, Do I live? Dost thou strike me? Do they rebel? Did I complain? Didst thoulove her? Did she die? So likewise in negative interrogations; Do I not yet grieve? Didshe 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 andinterrogative sentences in the 2 entries on do. As for Webster, he indicated the use of do forthe 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 ofperson and number relevant to the use of do. As to the role of do in the formation ofnegative sentences, Webster did not treat it in the entry on do.

Concerning have, Johnson mentioned its functions as an auxiliary in terms of theformation 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 supplied10 citations in the sub-entry, and it is almost certain that he carefully selected them so thatthey may fully support his explanation on perfect forms. That is, there are some caseswhere one citation includes 2 or 3 perfect forms. Besides, it is also noticeable that 9citations out of the 10 reproduced here are taken from Addison, which implies thepossibility that Johnson highly estimated Addison’s perfect forms. The contents of therelevant 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 gonetogether by the ears. Cong.

I have heard one of the greatest genius’s this age has produced, who had been trained up in allthe polite studies of antiquity, assure me, upon his being obliged to search into records, that he atlast took an incredible pleasure in it. Addison.

I have not here considered custom as it makes things easy, but as it renders them delightful; andthough others have made the same reflections, it is impossible they may not have drawn those usesfrom 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 abrief 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 offormulating perfect forms with the use of have. In addition to this task, Webster also gaveinformation on the relation between the inflected forms of have and person and number inconjunction with perfect forms; he further supplied invented examples for the purpose. Inthis practice, Webster’s is rather brief, but it may be said that he did more than whatJohnson had done in a relatively long sub-entry. The relevant part in Webster’s Dictionaryis as follows:

192

W: HAVE, v.t.[...] its uses as an auxiliary verb [...] are fully explained in grammars. As an auxiliary, it assists informing the perfect tense, as I have formed, thou hast formed, he hath or has formed, we haveformed, 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 Entrieson the Inflected Forms of Primary Verbs

All primary verbs are inflected irregularly. In this respect, most auxiliaries and someprincipal verbs share this feature with primary verbs. However, the inflected forms ofprimary verbs are usually more closely related to person and number of their subjects thanin the case of those of auxiliaries and principal verbs. For this reason, it is thought that theanalysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice in the treatment of the inflected forms ofprimary verbs will clearly reveal how they supplied verbal examples, paying attention togrammatical categories. In this sub-section, I will focus on Johnson’s and Webster’streatment 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 andwert. However, in the entries on being, Johnson said that its entry word is a noun, andWebster did little more than indicate that the word is the present participle of be. For thisreason, I will analyse how Johnson and Webster dealt with am, are, been, is, was, were andwert 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 alsoprovided etymological information for am; he also provided such information in otherentries on the inflected forms of be. Since the inflected forms of be are derived from thewords whose etymologies are different from each other, it may have been natural forWebster, who was keenly interested in etymology, to do this. However, since suchetymological information has little relevance to the purpose of this section, I will delete itfrom Webster’s entries hereafter. In supplying verbal examples, Johnson was moreconsiderate of the dictionary reader than Webster. In the first citation am appears threetimes, and in the second, its usage can be compared with that of art for second personsingular. 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 maybe 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 therelevant entry, and Webster supplied 3 invented examples, together with a usage notes, asfollows:

J: ARE.The third person plural of the present tense of the verb to be; as, young men are rash, old arecautious.

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.] Weare; 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 thanJohnson’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 personand number of its subjects.

In the entries on is, both Johnson and Webster indicated person and number associatedwith is. Johnson supplied 1 invented example and 3 citations in one of 2 sub-entries on theword. In the citations, there are 6 examples of the use of is, whose subjects are varied. Thecontents 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 functionIs 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 carefulselection of citations in the sub-entry. In another sub-entry, Johnson indicated that is can beabbreviated to ’s, which does not concern the analysis in this section. Webster’s treatmentof 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 deletedhere. K.M.] In the indicative, present tense, it is thus varied; I am, thou art, he, she, or it, is; we, yeor you, they, are.

In treating was and were, the preterites of be, Johnson supplied citations to show how thewords are used, but he did not make any comments in relevant entries. Besides, in each ofthe 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 grammaticalinformation is included in relevant entries. Webster, by contrast, gave a detailed account ofthe 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 othertenses. [Etymological comments have been deleted here. K.M.] It is united with be, to supply itswant of tenses, as went is with go.

Here, Webster indicated that were is used when its subjects are first person plural, secondperson and third person plural with examples. Additionally, he referred to the cases wherewere is used in imperfect tense and where it is unified with be. He illustrated suchexplanation with invented examples.

As to wert, the obsolete inflected form of be, Johnson supplied 3 citations to illustrate itsusage, 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 hesupplied 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 associatedwith the word, saying that “Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to beused 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’sDictionary 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 evenclaimed that:

The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded, or rather theconjunctive 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 beignorant 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’ asfollows 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 hepublished 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 ofmodal auxiliaries. For instance, they did not treat the role of be in the formation of theprogressive form, while its use in the formation of the passive voice is covered by bothJohnson and Webster, as is the role of have in the formation of the perfect tense. As to do asa sign of emphasis, both gave a detailed account. In general, Webster’s treatment ofprimary verbs as auxiliaries is more detailed than Johnson’s. While Johnson commented onbe for the formation of the passive voice in the simple present tense, Webster furtherreferred to it in the present perfect tense. Besides, Webster indicated the use of do for theformation 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’sbrief invented examples provide more information on the functions of primary verbs asauxiliaries 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 tomood. 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 citationsin treating primary verbs than in the case of modal auxiliaries. However, he suppliedinvented examples in most entries on primary verbs, which he rarely practiced in entries onverbs of high frequency where he attached importance to the explanation of the senses ofthe words rather than their usage. This illustrates that he was attentive to grammaticalcategories which primary verbs concern, though less so than to those which modalauxiliaries do. In Webster’s case, he supplied invented examples almost continuously asseen in other types of entries, valuing their brevity; this indicates that Webster wasconsistently 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 inChapters 1 to 8 from a systematic viewpoint, rather than enumerate the major points in eachchapter in sequence. Otherwise, various types of facts which have been revealed so farwould not be integrated, and remain isolated from each other. Based on this recognition, Iwill 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 behindsupplying verbal examples. The section will be comprised of 6 parts: discoveries in thepreliminary survey; reflections on the main types of analyses; facts and questions aboutJohnson’s practices in supplying citations; those about Webster’s; ways of answering suchquestions; and a summary of the lexicographers’ practices in supplying verbal examples. Iwill focus my attention on revealing general tendencies, citing few specific examples oftheir citations and invented examples.

After discussing the ‘process of the analyses’, I will summarise aspects of Webster’suniqueness as compared with Johnson’s in Section 9.3. In a sense, the style of Section 9.2will accept the suggestion of the saying “we cannot see the forest for the trees”. However, itis 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’sdictionaries; 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’sview 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 willprovide abundant cross-references to relevant sections (this is because I also intend to makethis chapter a type of subject index). And, unlike the case of other chapters, I will indicateeach 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. Atthe start of this chapter, I want to enumerate the major facts against prevailing perspectiveswhich have been revealed by my analyses in the main body of the thesis, Chapters 4 to 8. Iwill perform this by listing 6 sets of ‘myths and realities’, three each for Johnson’s andWebster’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 to9.2.6).

(1) With regard to Johnson’s Dictionary, it has widely been believed that most of hiscitations were taken from literary works published between Sidney’s (b.1554-d.1586) timeand 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 4.1.1and 4.1.2).

(2) There is a prevailing assumption that Johnson supplied citations in all entries andsub-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, Johnsonmost 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 thewhole range of his Dictionary as a reflection of his strong faith (Section 4.5.1). The fact isthat he hardly quoted from the Bible in entries on function words (Sections 6.1.2 to 6.2.2and 8.1.1).

(4) As to Webster’s verbal examples, one prevailing but false opinion is that he regardedsuch examples in the dictionary as almost useless (Section 4.3.1). Certainly, he generallyused citations far less frequently than Johnson (Section 4.3.2), but he supplied anabundance of invented examples, instead (Section 4.4). Besides, he seems to have carefullyselected phrases and sentences to be quoted in his Dictionary (Section 4.3.2), making fulluse 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 biblicalcitations than Johnson (Section 4.5.2). As a matter of fact, the number of biblical citationsin his Dictionary is generally far smaller than that in Johnson’s (Sections 4.1.1, 4.3.2 and4.5.2). However, in almost all entries and sub-entries which I analysed, he seems to havecarefully selected biblical phrases and sentences to be quoted so that they might be helpfulto illustrate the usage of words (Sections 4.5, 5.1.3, 6.1.4, etc.). In addition, it was quiteusual for him to shorten such phrases and sentences when they were borrowed fromJohnson’s Dictionary (Sections 4.5.6, 5.1.3, 6.1.5, etc.), sometimes eliminating the middleof them (Section 4.5.6), and not to hesitate from time to time to change their wording whenthey were directly taken from the AV, the original source (Sections 4.5.6 and 7.4); thispractice seems to have been almost entirely intended for the effective instruction on theusage 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 absolutenumbers of Johnson’s and Webster’s biblical citations. That is, Webster quoted from theBible more frequently than any other source in his Dictionary, but the number of hisbiblical citations is far smaller than Johnson’s. This also concerns my discussion in thissection 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 oftenenough to please Webster” (Section 4.5.2), I referred to Reed’s misleading claim thatWebster’s biblical citations outnumber Johnson’s there, which will be clear from thecontext of its relevant section.

(6) And quite a few authorities have strongly claimed that Webster frequently suppliedcitations 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, especiallythose between the beginning of the Restoration and Johnson’s time, far more often thanfrom 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, itconfirmed my hypothesis that the detailed analyses of Johnson’s and Webster’s verbalexamples in accordance with these facts would open new horizons in the historical study ofEnglish lexicography. It was especially exciting for me to realize that Webster’s Dictionarycould be regarded essentially as a highly sophisticated dictionary of the language at his timerather than as an encyclopaedic dictionary; as far as I could judge, few authorities hadreferred 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 thepractice of supplying verbal examples. For the purpose of producing the tables, I mainlyclassified their citations in respective types of entries and sub-entries according to thesources. However, it was also important to take account of their invented examples in thetabulation, since it was clear to me that such examples occasionally played a moreimportant role for both Johnson and Webster than citations, especially in their treatment ofmodal auxiliaries and primary verbs as discussed in Chapter 8. As a consequence, Iproduced 24 tables in total, which are scattered over Chapters 4 to 8. Referring to the tablesproduced in this way, I was not only able to confirm the correctness of the results of thepreliminary survey statistically, but also to find a considerable number of other respectivefacts.

In the following two sections, I will summarize the tendencies in Johnson’s andWebster’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 besolved which were brought about by the revelation of the facts. I will describe such pointsabout Johnson’s (Section 9.2.3) and about Webster’s (Section 9.2.4) later. In thisconnection, reference to the sets of ‘myths and realities’ I listed in the previous section willbe 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, alltypes of entry-words in Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries which I have analysed sharethe characteristic that no English-speaking person can spend a day without using them, andthat they have a wide range of senses and functions. In spite of such analogies, Johnson andWebster did not necessarily supply verbal examples evenly in their respective entries, interms of quantity. Besides, their selection of sources of citations often differed according tothe 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 ofentries 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 thesituation of the top ten most frequently quoted sources in respective types of entries.Integers in parentheses indicate the number of citations (and decimal fractions thepercentage) 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 theRange of Letter

L(4,047 citations /

1,310 entries)

Verbs of HighFrequency

(1,496 citations /28 entries)

Prepositions(618 citations /

19 entries)

PrepositionalAdverbs

(136 citations /12 entries)

ModalAuxiliaries

(52 citations /9 words)

Shake-speare(640)

15.8 Bible(249)

16.6 Dryden(114)

18.4 Dryden(24)

17.6 Shake-speare(8)

15.4

Dryden(480)

11.8 Dryden(183)

12.2 Shake-speare(89)

14.4 Shake-speare(21)

15.4 Dryden(8)

15.4

Bible(270)

6.7 Shake-speare(165)

11.0 Locke(39)

6.3 Locke(10)

7.4 Bacon(8)

15.4

Milton(165)

4.1 Locke(101)

6.8 Bacon(35)

5.7 Bacon(9)

6.6 Locke(5)

9.6

Bacon(163)

4.0 Addison(94)

6.3 Addison(32)

5.2 South(5)

3.7 Waller(3)

5.8

Addison(161)

4.0 Bacon(83)

5.5 Swift(26)

4.2 Milton(5)

3.7 Sidney(3)

5.8

Pope(156)

3.9 Milton(49)

3.3 Tillot-son(22)

3.6 Bible(4)

2.9 Ham-mond(2)

3.8

Locke(133)

3.3 Swift(45)

3.0 Pope(21)

3.4 Watts(3)

2.2 Bible(2)

3.8

Spenser(130)

3.2 Pope(40)

2.7 Milton(16)

2.6 Sidney(3)

2.2 BenJonson(2)

3.8

Swift(114)

2.8 Knolles(29)

1.9 Boyle(14)

2.3 Pope(3)

2.2 Addison(2)

3.8

In terms of the quantity of citations, the situation in entries on words for the letter L in thistable indicates that Johnson supplied 3.1 citations on average per entry, which can beregarded as Johnson’s usual practice; I have investigated the range of the L’s, where varioustypes of entry-words are mixed, to grasp his general inclinations in supplying and usingverbal examples (Section 5.1.1 to 5.1.4). By contrast, he supplied 53.4 citations per entry inentries on verbs of high frequency, and 32.5 in those on prepositions; i.e. 17.2 times morecitations than usual in entries on verbs of high frequency, and 10.5 times more citations inthose 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 modalauxiliaries. In all these four types of entries, Johnson quoted phrases and sentences morefrequently than usual, but the frequencies in the respective types of entries differ widelyfrom 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 authorsfrom the period after the Restoration. In addition to this point, Johnson’s practice insupplying citations from the Bible is also noteworthy; he frequently quoted from the Biblein entries on verbs of high frequency. While biblical citations in the L’s account for 6.7% ofall 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 frequentlyquoted sources. Actually, my analysis revealed that biblical citations there account for lessthan 1.0%, specifically 0.97%, of the total number of citations (Section 6.1.2); only 6 out of618 citations are taken from the Bible in entries on prepositions. Instead, Johnson quotedfrom Dryden exceedingly frequently in the entries, citations from this source accounting for18.4% of all citations; within the range of four types of entries, Johnson did not quote fromany other source as frequently as this. The situation in entries on prepositional adverbs issimilar; 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 highfrequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. However, he supplied 24 inventedexamples 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 exampleswithout quoting a single phrase and sentence.

Concerning the topics discussed above, I had to find answers to the following fivequestions:

(1) Why did Johnson supply a large number of citations in entries on verbs of highfrequency, quoting frequently from the Bible?

(2) Why did he supply citations less often in entries on prepositions, prepositionaladverbs 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 ofmodal auxiliaries and often used invented examples instead?

(4) Why did he not quote often from authors between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s ingeneral, in spite of his own statements in the “Preface” to the Dictionary?

(5) Why did he quote exceedingly frequently from Dryden in entries on prepositionsand 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 theprevious section.

202

Table 26: Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples by Types of Entries

Words for theRange of Letter

L(632 citations /2,024 entries)

Verbs of HighFrequency

(224 citations /28 entries)

Prepositions(94 citations / 19

entries)

PrepositionalAdverbs

(10 citations / 9entries)

ModalAuxiliaries

(17 citations /9 words)

Bible(182)

28.8 Bible(73)

32.6 Bible(43)

45.7 Bible(6)

60.0 Bible(13)

76.5

Dryden(73)

11.6 Dryden(21)

9.4 Dryden(11)

11.7 Shake-speare(1)

10.0 Dryden(1)

7.7

Shake-speare(50)

7.9 Shake-speare(17)

7.6 Shake-speare(6)

6.4 Sander-son(1)

10.0 Boethi-us(trans.)(1)

7.7

Pope(46)

7.3 Bacon(13)

5.8 Bacon(4)

4.3 Prior(1)

10.0 Bournet(1)

7.7

Milton(31)

4.9 Addison(12)

5.4 Tillot-son(2)

2.1 Dryden(1)

10.0 Addison(1)

7.7

Addi-son(21)

3.3 Pope(11)

4.9 Pope(2)

2.1 ----- --- ----- ---

Locke(12)

1.9 Locke(7)

3.1 BenJonson(2)

2.1 ----- --- ----- ---

Swift(10)

1.6 Swift(5)

2.2 Addison(2)

2.1 ----- --- ----- ---

Bacon(10)

1.6 Wood-ward(3)

1.3 Waller(1)

1.1 ----- --- ----- ---

Spenser(9)

1.4 Tillot-son(3)

1.3 Temple(1)

1.1 ----- --- ----- ---

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. Thissignifies that the number of Webster’s citations per entry is usually approximately one tenthof that of Johnson’s. However, like Johnson, Webster did not supply citations evenly in thefour other types of entries. He supplied 8.0 citations on average per entry in entries on verbsof high frequency and 4.9 in those on prepositions. This means that Webster supplied 26times more citations than usual for the treatment of verbs of high frequency and 16 timesmore citations for that of prepositions. In treating prepositional adverbs, he used 1.1citations per entry, or 3.7 times more citations than usual, in their relevant entries. As to thetreatment 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 thatalmost 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. Theother is Webster’s use of biblical citations. The number of biblical citations in Webster’sDictionary is generally far smaller than that in Johnson’s (Section 4.5.2). That is, within therange of entries on words beginning with the letter L, Johnson supplied 270 biblicalcitations in 1,310 entries, but Webster only used 182 such citations in 2,024 entries; thismeans an average for Johnson of 0.2 biblical citations per entry and for Webster less than0.1, specifically 0.09. At the same time, however, Webster always quoted from the Biblemore frequently than from any other source. Especially in entries on prepositions,prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries, he used more Bible quotes than in entries onwords for the letter L and verbs of high frequency, which is in stark contrast to Johnson. Asconfirmed in the previous section, Johnson hardly used biblical citations in entries onprepositions, prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries, although he quoted from theBible 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 suchexample on average per entry (Section 4.4). He offered 17.0 invented examples on averagein 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 fromJohnson’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 pre-positions 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’sand Webster’s relevant verbal examples and their source texts again almost from the verybeginning; as to the latter, they included the prefaces and grammars attached to thedictionaries, 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 fascinatingpart of my research.

I was determined to observe one important principle; there are quite a few similaritiesbetween Johnson’s and Webster’s practices, but I did not want to be swayed by thetemptation to ascribe such similarities to Webster’s copying of Johnson’s Dictionary. Thisis because I had already noticed that in some respects Webster did not imitate but made fulluse 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 viewof 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 greatway 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 nowthan 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 ofJohnson’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 (Section9.2.3 and 9.2.4) successfully completed, I was able to obtain satisfactory results. As toJohnson’s practice, I was able to clarify the following points:

(1) Johnson’s statement that he tried to provide citations from the works of authorsbetween Sidney’s time and the 1650’s was made from a literary viewpoint (Sections 4.1.1and 4.1.3). The fact that he did not quote often from such works indicates that hisDictionary 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, abotanist 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 allentries on verbs of high frequency, prepositions, prepositional adverbs, modal auxiliaries,and primary verbs and their inflected forms, with the exception of sub-entries devoted toidioms (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 (Section6.1.1). In this situation, he allowed himself to quote often from the Bible in entries on verbsof 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 accordwith his (Sections 6.1.2 to 6.1.3). The situation in entries on prepositions is similar to thatin entries on prepositional adverbs (Section 6.2.2).

205

(4) This also affects his careful selection of citations, i.e. less often in entries onprepositions and prepositional adverbs than in those on verbs of high frequency (Sections5.1.2, 6.1.2 and 6.2.2).

(5) In entries on modal auxiliaries, as well as in those on primary verbs and theirinflected 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 asperson, number and mood (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.1.5, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3). And Johnson’s practiceto 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 increasingthe 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’stime (Section 4.3.2). Webster clearly stated this in the “Introduction” (1828: n. pag. [27thand 46th]) to his Dictionary (Section 4.3.2). He practised as he preached, and quoted oftenfrom 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 ofverbs of high frequency (Section 5.1.1) and focused on the senses of the words in theirrelevant entries (Sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.4). However, he did not supply as many biblicalcitations as Johnson (Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.3). Rather, he preferred to quote from as manysources as possible there (Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.4).

(3) For prepositions and prepositional adverbs, Webster focused on their usages ratherthan senses, as Johnson had done (Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5). However, Webster madefull 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 becamedependent on citations (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 to 8.2.3). He resembled Johnson inthis respect, but the provision of biblical citations was exceptional. For instance, heinstructed the usage of modal auxiliaries and primary verbs especially closely, and in theirrelevant entries he used biblical citations which had been strictly selected so that they mightillustrate 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 beapparently 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 Englishusage by means of them (Sections 4.5, 5.1.3, 6.1.4, etc.). In this practice, he can be regardedas having made use of the educational situation at his time in which religious education washighly valued (Section 1.5.3, 3.3.5 and 5.1.3). Actually, most of Webster’s biblical citationsare far simpler than Johnson’s in terms of structure (Section 4.5.5 to 4.5.7, 5.1.3, etc.), andon some occasions he did not hesitate to change the wording of biblical passages so thatthey might be modernized (Sections 4.5.6 and 7.4).

(6) A sixth characteristic of Webster’s Dictionary is his frequent provision of inventedexamples (Sections 4.4, 5.1.4, 5.2.2, etc.). He used them especially frequently in treatingmodal auxiliaries and primary verbs (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 to 8.2.3), the wordswhose usage Webster instructed most closely. As mentioned above, he also used the moststrictly 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 ofverbal examples, it was inevitable to analyse the historical background not only to hisDictionary but also to Johnson’s; this was because Johnson’s Dictionary had always beenan indispensable reference work for Webster throughout his entire compilation process. Asto Johnson’s Dictionary, it was compiled to meet the requirements of men of letters in thelatter half of the seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth who ardently hopedto purify and stabilize the language (Section 3.1.1). For achieving this purpose, Johnsonused two continental dictionaries, the Vocabolario degli Accademici de la Crusca (1612-)and the Dictionnaire de l’Académie Françoise (1694-) which had been published to refinethe Italian and French languages, as indispensable reference works throughout hiscompilation process of the Dictionary (Sections 3.1.2 to 3.1.6). However, it should be notedthat Johnson’s interest almost always lay in establishing the grammar and usage rather thanthe condition of the language of literature (Section 1.4). Though he was usually prescriptivein this respect, which was natural when the trend of linguistic thought at his time is takeninto account, his view of grammar and usage exerted a strong influence to the extent thatJoseph Priestley, a forerunner of descriptive grammarians, incorporated some of its uniqueaspects into his grammars (Section 3.2).

In contrast to Johnson’s, Webster’s Dictionary was compiled with the growing demandfor teaching the language to the American public as a backdrop, with little relevance to theliterary world (Section 3.3.5). In this regard, how well his Dictionary matched the demandof the time was to be clearly reflected in the letters exchanged between publishingcompanies and the teachers of the language concerning the “dictionary war” which waswaged between Webster’s camp and Joseph Worcester, another leading lexicographer inAmerica in the first half of the nineteenth century (Section 3.3.4). That is, since Websterwas originally a grammarian, his Dictionary was generally expected to contribute greatly toimprove the language skills of the American public. Concerning his grammar, which hadbeen 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 aboutestablishing an American style of English by compiling his Dictionary (Sections 3.3.1 to3.3.3).

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’sDictionary, it will be necessary to overview that of Johnson’s at the same time. This isbecause 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 theentries in his Dictionary, Johnson was strongly influenced by the two continentaldictionaries mentioned above (Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.6). Specifically, the renownedarrangement 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 theVocabolario 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, alsosuggested by the Dictionnaire (Section 3.1.5). In addition to such influences by the twocontinental dictionaries, Johnson occasionally devised some particular ways of expressinghis 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: undividedlong entries on prepositions and frequent provision of introductory remarks.

(1) Webster’s Undivided Long Entries on PrepositionsIn 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 themerits of the method, occasionally provided entries on the same words which are notdivided into sub-entries. Specifically, he practised this in entries on at, from, in and ofwithin the range of my analyses (Section 6.1.1). However, the practice never means thatWebster 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 authoritativecitations, 31 invented phrases and sentences and 1 citation from Franklin. Besides, in theentry, 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 onprepositions in Webster’s Dictionary can be regarded as short articles whose contentswould have been difficult to achieve by the method of sub-dividing entries.

(2) Webster’s Frequent Provision of Introductory RemarksJohnson provided introductory remarks very rarely and almost only in the sphere of entrieson modal auxiliaries (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.15). In contrast, Webster performed the practicemuch more frequently, not only in entries on modal auxiliaries (Section 8.1.2) but also inthose 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 madethe 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 byreceiving it when offered, or by using exertion to obtain it. Take differs from seize, as it does notalways imply haste, force or violence. It more generally denotes to gain or receive into possessionin a peaceable manner, either passively or by active exertions. Thus,

Then, after Thus, Webster provided other sub-entries one after another. This indicates thatthe first sub-entry is an introduction to the following 39 sub-entries. Such a sub-entry forintroductory remarks is in no way found in the corresponding entry in Johnson’sDictionary; 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 notlimited 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 Englishgrammar 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 beforethey began to compile their dictionaries (Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3 and 1.5.2). There are somecases 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 Websterprescriptive (Section 5.1.4). In the entry on get in his Dictionary, Johnson simply definedthe expression as “To have possession of; to hold”. In contrast to this, Webster, in itscorresponding 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 nocorn, I have got no money, she has got a fair complexion, when the person means only, I have nocorn, I have no money, she has a fair complexion.

In the entry on averse, trying to prove the legitimacy of averse from, Johnson provided 2sub-entries with relevant citations: one for the indication of the ‘correct’ collocation aversefrom, and the other for the ‘wrong’ collocation averse to (Section 7.4). In the formerJohnson 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 includesthe 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 mindexerted from an object. Averse expresses a less degree of opposition in the mind, than detestingand abhorring.

Webster, as a grammarian, was also keenly interested in etymology (Section 1.5.4) andknew the original sense of averse, but was essentially a lexicographer who attached muchimportance to language as a medium of communication.

In conjunction with Johnson’s changing views on usage, it may be worth pointing out hisuse of the technical term ‘conjunctive mood’ (Section 8.2.3). In the “Grammar” attached tohis Dictionary, Johnson (1755: n. pag. [7th]) stated that “Wert is properly of theconjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative”. According to SterlingLeonard (1962:200-209), the term ‘conjunctive mood’ which Johnson used here puzzledmany 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 theconjunctive 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 beignorant 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’ asfollows 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 afterhe 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 anddescriptive about averse. However, his statements in the respective entries are both inaccord with the view of contemporary lexicographers, offering a glimpse of modernity inhis 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 themeaning of ‘have’. The form have got looks as if it is the auxiliary ‘have’ followed by the pastparticiple of the verb ‘get’, but it is used with the same meanings as the main verb ‘have’, in thesenses of owning or possessing things.

On averse, the OED reads (Section 7.4):

[...] although condemned by Johnson as etymologically improper, is justified by the considerationthat 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 thesense 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 readhis treatment of shall and should. Concerning the former, in the entry on shall, we seeWebster the etymologist and grammarian integrated with Webster the lexicographer andteacher of the language for the American public at his time (Section 8.1.2). At thebeginning of the first sub-entry in the entry, Webster quoted sentences from Old Englishliterature, which are not seen in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary, to showthe 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 “thesignification 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, heprovided 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 whichhas been of interest to modern grammarians (Section 8.1.3). This is called ‘emotionalshould ’ 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 thatstones do fall. In all similar phrases, should implies the actual existence of the fact, without acondition or supposition.

This statement agrees with Quirk et al. ’s (1985:234) that “In using should, the speakerentertains, as it were, some ‘putative’ world, recognizing that it may well exist or come intoexistence”. 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 shouldindicates 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 inJohnson’s Dictionary, he also developed Johnson’s treatment of words and phrases. Toexemplify this point, I will compare Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of certaincollocations and compound words here.

(1) Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Verb-preposition and Adjective-prepositionCollocationsStefania 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-prepositioncollocations (Section 7.6).

Webster dealt with a considerable number of such collocations, reflecting his keeninterest in prepositional usage (Section 7.1). Although disregarding 5 of Johnson'streatments of such collocations, Webster added 20 new relevant descriptions (Sections 7.2and 7.5). For the purpose of illustrating these newly added descriptions, he utilised biblicalpassages irrespective of his religious faith.

(2) Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Compound WordsIn entries on prepositional adverbs, Johnson showed his interest in treating compoundwords (Section 6.2.3). Specifically, in a sub-entry on over, stating that “In composition ithas a great variety of significations; it is arbitrarily prefixed to nouns, adjectives, or otherparts of speech in a sense equivalent to more than enough; too much”, Johnson supplied 18citations which include various compound words formed with over and other words. Notsatisfied 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 therecognition that over in them had the sense “more than enough; too much” only. Differentlyfrom 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 onover in relation to compound words. In this sense, Webster can be said to have been evenmore skilful than Johnson in discriminating the senses of the word. Webster also referred tocompound words with after in its relevant entry as follows:

After is prefixed to many words, forming compounds, but retaining its genuine signification. Someof the following words are of this kind, but in some of them after seems rather to be a separateword.

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 theentry on after in Webster’s Dictionary is also an introductory remark to entries on therespective 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 sub-section, I will indicate two types of Webster’s use of Johnson’s citations; one reveals thedifferences between Johnson’s and Webster’s recognition of words, and the other signifiesWebster’s unique use of Johnson’s citations.

(1) Johnson’s and Webster’s Recognition of WordsWebster borrowed numerous citations from Johnson’s Dictionary to express his recognitionof words which was different from Johnson’s. I will confirm here a few examples whichconcern Webster’s attribution of parts of speech and that of the senses of words. As to theformer, the citations which Johnson and Webster supplied in the entries on last and set canbe mentioned. Firstly, in his treatment of the idiom at last, Johnson supplied a biblicalcitation “Gad, a troop shall overcome him: but he shall overcome at the last ” in the entryon the word last as a noun (Section 4.5.6), while Webster supplied the very same citation inthe entry on the word last as an adjective (Section 4.5.6). Secondly, both lexicographerssupplied a biblical citation “Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set, by reason of hisage” in their dictionaries. Webster allocated it to the entry on the word set as a transitiveverb, 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 thesenses of words, Webster sometimes separated a bunch of citations which are supplied in asingle 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 closelydivided the senses of words. Actually, in some entries in Johnson’s Dictionary, the numberof sub-entries is larger than that in the OED. However, Webster’s mentioned above showsthe 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, evenmore closely than Johnson (Section 5.1.1). Thus, Webster divided 9 entries into more sub-entries 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 entryon 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 ofsome words in a manner which was very different from Johnson’s (Section 4.4).

(2) Webster’s Unique Use of Johnson’s CitationsWebster quite often used Johnson’s citations in various ways which Johnson could neverhave imagined. To illustrate this point, I will refer to a few examples of Webster’streatment of prepositional usage and elliptical expressions. Concerning the former, oneexample is that Johnson supplied the biblical citation “Take my yoke upon you, and learnof 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, whichJohnson had never referred to within the whole range of my analysis. In treating this type ofexpression, Webster consistently availed himself of Johnson’s citations, e.g. in 4 sub-entries 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 ofhis Dictionary; it is estimated that approximately 2,000 such examples can be found withinthe 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 usagenotes 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 useof and developed the methods revealed in them and supplied invented examples in at least 3ways (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) andciting 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 notencyclopaedic. They are fundamentally dictionaries of the language. In compiling them,Johnson utilized his knowledge of literary works for the purpose of giving guidance on theusage of words, and Webster used the dictionary text to express his view of grammar. Forthe latter, the provision of encyclopaedic information in his Dictionary was of secondaryimportance, however innovative it may have been in the history of English lexicography. Inthis project, I attempted to reveal the relationship between Johnson’s and Webster’s verbalexamples, 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 seemsto have opened doors to promising investigations of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionariesand the development of American lexicography as well as the wider historical study ofEnglish lexicography. Specifically, there are at least three points which indicate the needfor 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 thatWebster’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 ingeneral which are reflected in the dictionaries.

(2) The project clarified that Johnson and Webster very frequently gave indications ofthe usage of words by means of verbal examples, sometimes explicitly and sometimesimplicitly. It would be worthwhile to put such indications in systematic order so that therelationship between each of them may be clarified with the provision of an appropriatemethod for it.

(3) From a wider perspective, there is a probability that the foundation of Americanlexicography was laid through the ‘dictionary war’ waged between Webster’s camp andWorcester (Section 3.3.4). With this recognition in mind, some authorities have comparedthe dictionaries of Webster’s with those of Worcester (Section 3.3.4). However, as far as Ican 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 theproject 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: GeorgOlms, 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 ofSources and Readings to Illustrate the Development of educational Practice, Theory andOrganization. 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 105Piccadilly, London, 1984), London: The Herbert Press Ltd, 37-45.

Freed, Lewis (1939), ‘The sources of Johnson’s dictionary’ (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation atCornell 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 LinguisticSeries, Comparative Romance Grammar, vol. 1). New York: American Pub. Co.

Hartmann, Reinhard R. K. and James, Gregory (1998) (revised and paperback edition published in2001), Dictionary of Lexicography, London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.

Hayashi, Tetsuro (1978), The Theory of English Lexicography 1530-1791 (Amsterdam Studies in theTheory 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 ofForeign 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: LiteraryCriticism, Intellectual History, and Social Change, Carbondale and Edwardsville: SouthernIllinois University Press, 61-72.

Krapp, George Philip (1925), The English Language in America (2 vols.). New York: AppletonCentury Crofts.

Laird, Charlton Grant (1972), Language in America reissued (originally published, Cleveland: WorldPublishing, 1970). London: Englewood Cliffs.

Landau, Sidney I. (1984), Dictionaries: the Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity 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 WisconsinStudies 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: ScolarPress, 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 ClayTablet to the Computer. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

– (ed.) (1992), The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford and New York: OxfordUniversity 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 HisRetirement from Kansai University of Foreign Studies, Osaka: The Intercultural Research InstituteKansai Universities of Foreign Studies, 163-181.

– (1992), ‘J. K.’s dictionary (1702) reconsidered’, in: Tommola, Hannu et al. (eds) Euralex ’92Proceedings I-II: Papers Submitted to the 5th EURALEX International Congress on Lexicographyin Tampere, Finland, Part II (Studia Translatologica, Publications of the Department ofTranslation Studies, University of Tampere, Finland, ser. A, vol. 2). Tampere: TampereenYliopisto, 601-606.

– (1997), ‘S. Johnson to tairiku no gengo academy: hin’yodoshi no koumoku wo chushin ni’ (‘Theinfluence of continental language academies on S. Johnson: his treatment of verbs of highfrequency’), Journal of Soka Women’s College, XII, 63-77.

Morton, Herbert C. (1994), The Story of ‘Webster’s Third’: Philip Gove’s Controversial Dictionaryand 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 andPresent). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

– (1983), Johnson-no Eigo-jiten: Sono Rekishiteki Igi (Johnson’s Dictionary: Its HistoricalSignificance). Tokyo: Taishukan.

– (1988), Johnson the Philologist (Kansai University of Foreign Studies Intercultural ResearchInstitute Monograph, no. 20). Osaka: The Intercultural Research Institute, Kansai University ofForeign 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 ofLexicography, vol. 7, no. 4, 307-310.

– (1995), Chosen Words: Past and Present Problems for Dictionary Makers (Exeter LinguisticStudies). 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 Courseof Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar’ with Explanatory Remarks byKikuo 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.), JosephPriestley’s ‘The Rudiments of English Grammar’ and ‘A Course of Lectures on the Theory ofLanguage, and Universal Grammar’ with Explanatory Remarks by Kikuo Yamakawa (A ReprintSeries 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 theOrigins, 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 ofWisconsin Press.

Quirk, Randolph, et. al. (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London andNew York: Longman.

Read, Allen Walker (1967), ‘The spread of German linguistic learning in New England during thelifetime 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 inLexicography in Honor of Warren N. Cordell, Terre Haute, Indiana: The Dictionary Society ofNorth America, 3-15.

– (1986a), ‘Competing lexicographical traditions in America’, in: Hartmann, Reinhard R. K. (ed.) TheHistory of Lexicography: Papers from the Dictionary Research Centre Seminar at Exeter, March1986 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies inthe History of the Language Sciences, vol. 40), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 197-206.

– (1986b), ‘The history of lexicography’, in: Ilson, Robert (ed.) Lexicography: an EmergingInternational Profession, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 28-50.

Reddick, Allen (1996), The Making of Johnson’s Dictionary 1746-1773 (a revised and first paperbackedition) (first published, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity 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 StateUniversity, 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 theEnglish 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 aBook. 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: TheDictionary 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 LinguisticScience, Series III – Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, vol. 57). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

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 andZettersten, Arne (eds) Symposium on Lexicography II: Proceedings of the Second InternationalSymposium on Lexicography, May 16-17, 1984 at the University of Copenhagen (LexicographicaSeries Maior 5), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 157-168.

– (ed.) (1991), A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar, 1700-1800 (Amsterdam Studies in theTheory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies in the History of the LinguisticScience, 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), ���� ���������� ��� ��� ������� � ������ vol. 1. Facsimile Reprint,Menston: Scolar Press, 1968.

Trench, Richard C. (1857), On Some Deficiencies in Our English Dictionaries (Transactions of thePhilological 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 dePublicité 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.) JohnsonianStudies: 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 alexicographer’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 andLexicography. 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 UniversityPress, 65-90.

Yamakawa, Kikuo (ed.) (1971), Joseph Priestley’s ‘The Rudiments of English Grammar’ and ‘ACourse of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar’ with ExplanatoryRemarks 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, 133Addison, Joseph, 38, 39, 69, 70, 71, 78, 80,

106, 114, 124, 174, 187, 191Allen, Harold, 13, 14Allestree, Richard, 39, 182, 183Arbuthnot, John, 69, 71Atkinson, A.D., 10, 11Bacon, Francis, 69, 71, 78, 79, 88, 106, 114,

182Barker, Edmund, 24Barlett, John, 59Bately, Janet, 139, 140Baugh, Albert, 23, 24, 55, 56, 80, 163Béjoint, Henri, 7Benson, Morton, 7, 58, 120Bentham, Jeremy, 23Berkeley, George, 39Boethius, 174Boswell, James, 23Boulton, James, 21, 76, 79Bournet, 174Boyle, Robert, 69, 114Brewer, Charlotte, 14, 32Broome, William, 114Browne, Thomas, 69, 71, 73Bryant, Margaret, 59Budgell, Eustace, 39Burchfield, Robert, 70, 71Burnet, Thomas, 114Butler, Samuel, 114Campbell, George, 163Cawdrey, Robert, 31Chaucer, Geoffrey, 70, 175Clarendon, Earl of (Edward Hyde), 163, 164Cleaveland, Moses (?), 80Close, R., 180Cowie, Anthony, 35Craigie, William, 59Cubberley, Ellwood, 62, 63, 64

Daniel, Samuel, 114, 182DeMaria, Robert, 10, 11, 12, 35, 36Downes, Rackstraw, 8, 13, 139Drabble, Margaret, 39Dryden, 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, 71Fowler, Francis, 105Fowler, Henry, 105Franklin, Benjamin, 80, 131, 132, 207Freed, Lewis, 39, 69, 70, 72Friend, Joseph, 27, 29, 30, 31, 58, 59, 60, 61,

64, 65, 76, 80, 82Gay, John, 39, 72Gibson, Martha, 64, 65Godwin, William, 23Grew, Nehemiah, 114, 187Grimm, Jacob, 25Hamilton, Alexander, 80Hanmer, Thomas, 75, 105, 204Harris, John, 75, 105Hartmann, Reinhard, 2, 4, 5, 173Harwood, Edward, 40Hayashi, Tetsuro, 7, 8, 12, 14, 36, 49, 50, 71Hill, George, 10Hill, John, 75, 105, 204Hooker, Richard, 69, 71, 114Hulbert, James, 59Ikeda, Makoto, 18, 19, 64Ikegami, Yoshihiko, 17, 19, 22, 129Irving, Washington, 80James, Gregory, 4, 5, 173Jespersen, Otto, 180, 210Johnson, Samuel (Jr.), 65Johnston, William, 64, 65Jones, William, 23, 24, 25

221

Jonson, Ben, 114, 182K., J., 48Kent, James (?), 80Kojima, Yoshiro, 32Kolb, Gwin, 1, 7, 13, 36, 42, 49, 50, 52, 72,

73Kolb, Ruth, 36, 72, 73Kozu, Haruo, 1Krapp, George, 27, 64, 65, 80L’Estrange, Roger, 69Laird, Charlton, 17, 23, 24, 27, 61, 63Landau, Sidney, 2, 17, 23, 24Leech, Geoffrey, 34Leonard, Sterling, 5, 34, 35, 50, 53, 55, 129,

157, 163, 164, 195, 208Locke, John, 69, 78, 79, 114, 182Long, Ralph, 172Lowth, Robert, 50, 51, 53, 55, 129, 163Malone, Kemp, 55, 57Mason, George, 80Mathews, Mitford, 27McAdam, Edward, 10, 11, 13, 14, 72McArthur, Tom, 5, 34, 81Metzger, Bruce, 40Micklethwait, David, 25, 30, 31, 75, 76, 81,

83, 99Migliorini, Bruno, 43, 44Miller, Philip, 75, 105, 204Milne, George, 10, 11, 13, 14, 72Milton, John, 54, 69, 78, 79, 80, 114, 182Miyoshi, Kusujiro, 1, 48Morton, Herbert, 17, 58, 84Murray, James, 12, 26, 27, 55, 173, 187Murray, Lindley, 19, 64, 163Nagashima, Daisuke, 14, 31, 32, 51, 76, 101Noyes, Gertrude, 1, 49, 50Nuccorini, Stefania, 170, 210Osselton, Noel, 14, 26, 72, 173, 187Paine, Thomas, 23Perry, William, 64, 65Phillips, John, 39Pickering, John, 59Pope, Alexander, 31, 39, 69, 71, 78, 80, 190Priestley, Joseph, 1, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,

170, 206Prior, Matthew, 69, 71, 148

Pyles, Thomas, 19, 21, 63, 64, 80, 98, 99Quinlan, Maurice, 10, 11, 40Quirk, Randolph, 35, 127, 147, 157, 158, 171,

180, 183, 186, 188, 210Raleigh, Walter, 71, 72Ramsay, David, 80Read, Allen, 13, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 39, 57, 61,

69, 70, 72, 76, 132, 133Reddick, Allen, 39Reed, Joseph, 3, 20, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 58, 59,

80, 84, 120, 123, 198Roe, Keith, 4Rollins, Richard, 27, 56, 57, 58, 64Rymer, Thomas, 166Schreyer, Rüdiger, 47Shakespeare, William, 13, 35, 69, 70, 71, 74,

78, 79, 105, 106, 114, 135, 138, 148, 161,167, 170, 182, 187

Sherbo, Arthur, 13Sidney, Philip, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 79, 198,

201, 204Siebert, Donald, 14Simon, Irène, 139, 140Sledd, James, 1, 7, 13, 42, 49, 50, 52Smith, James, 59South, Robert, 69Spenser, Edmund, 69, 70, 78Starnes, De Witt, 1, 49, 50Steele, Richard, 38Stein, Gabriele, 31Stenberg, Theodore, 30, 31, 39, 69Struble, Mildred, 139Sundby, Bertil, 34Svartvik, Jan, 34Swift, Jonathan, 35, 39, 43, 69, 70, 71, 78,

138, 161, 163, 164Thomson, Charles, 40Thornton, Richard, 59Tillotson, John, 114Tooke, Horne, 23, 24, 25, 132, 133Trench, Richard, 36Wakelin, Martyn, 9, 12Walsh, Michael, 80Watt, Ian, 12Watts, Isaac, 69, 72Weinbrot, Howard, 7, 14, 128

222

Wells, Ronald, 7, 14, 16, 21, 35, 60, 151Wilkins, John, 114Wimsatt, William, 10, 11, 12, 35, 36, 43, 83,

139, 140

Withers, Phillip, 163Worcester, Joseph, 61, 64, 65, 206, 213Yamakawa, Kikuo, 70, 71

II Index of Words

abase, 81about, 143, 144, 154after, 142, 150, 152,

210am, 192angry, 161are, 193ashamed, 161at, 138averse, 163,164, 208be, 189bear, 103, 110, 115,

118bearing, 125been, 193before, 137, 142,

153, 155believe, 166below, 155bore, 123break, 103, 108, 117breaking, 125broke, 123broken, 123, 124by, 145came, 123can, 184, 185cast, 109, 117casting, 125cent, 60come, 109, 112, 113.

123coming, 125comment, 167compunctious, 22consist, 169corresponsive, 22could, 185delighted, 169depend, 169

discourage, 14disgust, 164, 165dispatch, 26do, 189, 190, 191dollar, 60down, 151, 152fall, 109fallen, 124for, 142, 144, 145from, 132, 137garb, 38get, 116, 208give, 109, 111, 114given, 124go, 103, 110, 113,

119, 204gone, 124got, 124have, 191, 192her, 53herself, 53himself, 53imp, 37impatient, 165in, 133independent, 165intermarriage, 36invest, 168is, 193, 194lady-mantle, 73laid, 87lain, 87laird, 81lamb, 90lament, 94lamp, 82land, 82lapse, 83larboard, 74large, 82

largely, 37last, 95latchet, 87late, 82lately, 82lay, 91, 95, 97lazuli, 73lazulite, 81lean, 98leap, 93leap-year, 73learn, 35, 96leasing, 88least, 38, 92leave, 90leet, 74legioin, 90lesser, 53lest, 92let, 96leveling, 37leviathan, 87liable, 83lien, 88light, 95, 96ligure, 87like, 88, 91likewise, 92live, 91lo, 91long, 93longsuffering, 95loose, 93, 96, 97lose, 98lovely, 94loving-kindness, 90lust, 91mad, 166make, 103, 104, 110,

116

may, 184me, 53mechanics, 37melter, 36must, 186, 187obey, 54of, 129, 130, 131,

137off, 151on, 136, 138, 151,

152, 153outstare, 38over, 142, 149, 150,

153, 154pelting, 22prefer, 162quaint, 70rote, 70run, 109, 117, 118set, 112, 113, 114,

115shall, 175, 176, 177,

180should, 54, 177, 179,

180, 212sick, 169tackle, 70take, 45, 104, 110,

111, 207through, 142to, 137, 143, 149took, 124was, 194went, 123were, 194wert, 194, 195, 209will, 177, 178with, 145would, 181, 182, 183