[Lexicog] stereotypical beliefs and lexicography

[Patrick Hanks]

Well, in practical dictionaries on synchronic principles 
I think we can at least draw the line at giving the kiss of life to
offensive expressions that are dying a natural death anyway.

Thus. I WOULD want to include "draw a bow at a venture" (= make 
a wild guess) in a big one-volume dictionary, because even though 
it's rare and probably obsolete or at least obsolescent it's not offensive 
-- so there's no problem about explaining it, which will be good if 
anyone ever stumbles across it and looks it up.  However,  I 
WOULD NOT include "nigger in the woodpile", because it is 
offensive as well as rare.

Bob Burchfield, editor of the OED supplements, of late lamented 
memory, received death threats, you know, over the definition 
of "jew" as a verb meaning "to drive a hard bargain with, or cheat"
in Oxford dictionaries. It was in most ordinary English dicts. of the 
1960s and 70s, I think, both British and American.  But the expression 
is now completely obsolete (Isn't it?)

Maybe even by discussing it we are in danger of reviving it. 


Patrick

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wayne Leman 
  To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:21 PM
  Subject: [Lexicog] stereotypical beliefs and lexicography


  Where do we draw the line, Fritz? My own thinking on the matter is that we do not draw the line. My preference for lexicography is to be exhaustive, and I prefer that for dictionaries also. But I believe we can mark rascist entries as being rascist, vulgar entries as vulgar, xenophobic entries as xenophobic, etc. If a term or phrase is used in a rascist manner by speakers of a language, that fact is part of its lexical information and deserves to be in a dictionary.

  Wayne
  -----
  Wayne Leman
  http://committed.to/fieldtesting
    Wayne and Thapelo,

    Where do we draw the line? If we have a politically correct dictionary, 
    certain entries will be marked sexist, racist, or homophobic or not even
    be mentioned. Of course, there are dictionaries of certain subcultures,
    slang or argot dictionaries.
    But if we want to produce a GENERAL dictionary for the whole population
    of an ethnic group, where do we draw the line about what to include and/
    or what to mark as slang etc.? The "positive social role"  you are talking 
    about, Wayne,  cannot consist of  expunging unwanted words and expressions
    ("unwanted" by dictionary-makers who have a certain political or whatever 
    agenda; impartiality does not really exist in these matters, as far I am
    concerned).
    Certain great books (the Bible) or authors (Shakespeare) have enriched 
    the vocabulary of English enormously. Can biassed dictionary-makers 
    expurgate the English language because such and such expressions are 
    from the Bible or from a "white dead male" (Shakespeare)? A certain 
    Thomas Bowdler, an editor in Victorian times tried to rewrite Shakespeare, 
    removing all profanity so as not to offend the sensibilities of the audiences 
    of his day (hence the term "to bowdlerize"). It did not work.
    Thapelo, can you tell me more about Terry Eagleton's position in the
    chapter of "Literary Theory"?

    Fritz Goerling




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20050222/fa1fb5f2/attachment.htm>