16.1498, Review: Lexicography: Ramson (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1498. Wed May 11 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.1498, Review: Lexicography: Ramson (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 10-May-2005
From: Gerhard Leitner < leitner at philologie.fu-berlin.de >
Subject: Lexical Images 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 01:06:13
From: Gerhard Leitner < leitner at philologie.fu-berlin.de >
Subject: Lexical Images 
 

AUTHOR: Ramson, Bill
TITLE: Lexical Images
SUBTITLE: The Story of the Australian National Dictionary
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-170.html


Gerhard Leitner, Freie Universität Berlin.

Lexical images (LexIm) was, Bill Ramson says, at first conceived as a 
response to claims about the relationship of language and culture as it 
manifests itself in Australian English (AusE) by Anna Wierzbicka. 
Wierzbicka (1997) is an extensive analysis on how words reflect 
culture and draws untenable conclusions about a very direct link. But 
Ramson refrains from focusing on her Australian approach and 
changed the focus of the book to a much broader history of the 
Australian National Dictionary (AND). The book is now "about the 
making of a historical dictionary of Australianisms ... and about 
the 'lexical images' which can be created from an examination of 
certain combinations of those Australianisms. It seeks to demonstrate 
that the English language, as it has been used by Australians of 
European origin ..., and in particular the Australian additions to the 
vocabulary of English, as these are recorded in the Australian 
National Dictionary, provide a unique insight into the lives and history 
of Australians, and create a kaleidoscope of images ... that may in 
their turn offer interpretations of Australian attitudes and the 
Australian way of life." (p xi). The book is written in a very personal 
style by one of the leading Australian lexicographers and philologists 
but the claims just quoted suggest a scientific 'bias' Personal style and 
research create a tension to which I will return at the end of the 
review. 

The history of the dictionary is the main theme of Ch.s One to 
Four, 'lexical images' are highlighted (from a quasi-theoretical angle) 
in Ch. Four but mainly in Ch.s Five to Nine. Ch. Ten turns to the 
cultural lexis of the 20th century and concludes, pessimistically, that 
AusE has had its day -- and is now on the decline as a creative form 
of English. Chapter One begins with the and the Oxford tradition and 
the Oxford English dictionary, which provide the intellectual and 
lexicographic background of the AND. It then turns to the ways the 
editors of the AND have tried to adapt the authorial decisions taken at 
Oxford. Chapter Two traces the path from the first historical 
dictionary -- Morris's Austral English dictionary (1898)  --  to the AND 
(1988). The development towards an Australian historical dictionary 
began, Ramson explains, at The University of Sydney and (slightly 
later) the National University of Australia in Canberra in the 1960s. But 
these early initiatives did not get off the ground and the scene shifted 
to Macquarie University and its foundation professor of linguistics, 
Arthur Delbridge, who was asked to produce 'an aggressively 
Australian dictionary'. The Macquary dictionary was not meant to be 
an historical one but one that was to reflect the contemporary 
language of Australia, emphasizing, as just implied, the colloquial to 
vulgar end of the spectrum. The Macquarie stalled too for a while but 
was rescued by Macquary University and a new publisher (cf. Leitner 
2004). Three other players came on the scene to help the historical 
project, i.e. the Humanities Research Centre, the department of 
English and the faculty of arts at ANU. In 1978 concrete steps could 
be taken, but ups and downs succeeded each other until the AND was 
eventually published. 

Like many books on language or national vocabularies, LexIm follows 
a tradition of writing essayistically about its subject matter. However 
well such recollections are narrated -- and they are narrated well -- 
the nostalgic tone may be dear to those involved in the making of the 
AND but makes LexIm difficult to appreciate as a reader interested in 
the national lexis of Australia's English. It is a bit absurd to be forced 
to learn of details like these:

"She [Joan Hughes] was a prodigious worker, expecting of others 
what she readily gave herself... Not a very big person, and inclined to 
become ingrossed in what she was doing that she doesn't notice what 
else is going on around her..."

"We had, in our green and salad days, been a bit lax about this, often 
going from one cabinet to the next, leaving drawers open and cards 
sticking up.... But a nine-drawer cabinet ... is far from stable ... and 
when Joan pulled out another drawer in the top half of the cabinet, it 
tumpled forward on its face, spilling its contents and pinning her to the 
floor... But we rescued her ourselves and she ... refiled the spilt 
cards...." (p 58f)

Instead of such trivia, there could have been a little more analysis. 
Would it not have been interesting to set the claim that dictionaries 
and lexicographers such as on AusE are codifiers of the language 
against the haphazardness of funding, change of publishers and 
negotiating partners at the upper echelon, or time constraints? The 
outcome of a varied history, the AND, has after all become a 
cornerstone in Australian lexicography. But there are few signs of an 
analysis of broader sociolinguistic themes.

Ch. Four, unintentionally, comes close to what a reader would have 
expected. It compares the Dictionary of New Zealand English (1997) 
with the AND (1988) and makes one clear point: Lexicographers set 
the rules of data collection and classification, they decide on what 
words and information goes into the dictionary and, as a result, it is 
them that decided on the kind of image a dictionary may projects of a 
national culture:

"[T]he mere fact that a lexicographer determines what should be 
included and what excluded entails an exercising of authority on an 
unprecedented scale, in that it requires a subsequent determination 
as to what should be included in, and excluded from, a body of 
knowledge that the pragmatic user of a dictionary would come to 
regard as 'the foundation of a national language and culture'." (p 84)

The lexicographer's role is of course pre-determined by whatever 
arrangements have been made with the publisher, the funding bodies 
etc. on what the dictionary was to be like. The AND, for instance, 
excludes many of the technical terms of fauna and flora. These 
domains come up when AusE has coined fanciful words or compounds 
starting with 'native' as in 'native dog' for dingo or when loan words 
from indigenous languages are used. There are hundreds of both 
types. But the resulting cultural image, i.e. of measuring the 'new 
home' by the standards of the 'old home', gets overemphasized if the 
technical words are left out. Instead of looking at the theme of 
potential bias, we learn of Ramson's personal impact: "I fulfilled 
a 'safety-net' role, or tried to, because, as always, there simply wasn't 
enough time to do everything I felt necessary." (p 68). 

As lexicographers are exerting that influence, the lexical images that a 
dictionary projects of a culture is bound to be biased. The comparison 
of the AND with the DNZE is informative. Ramson explains that the 
AND's policies were much more restrictive than those of the NZE 
counterpart -- so that the impression that NZE would have been 
more 'productive' is wrong. One cannot compare the two 
dictionaries 'on the quick' -- despite OUP's stringent guidelines. And 
that is, incidentally, another important factor when one thinks of 
dictionaries as codifiers of a language (variety), viz. variations in the 
interpretations of guidelines. 

Ch. Four had already begun with a closer look at some of the lexical 
fields or onomastic domains of AusE. Ch.s Five to Nine add 
considerable detail, dealing with the language of the landscape and 
topography, occupational terms, the finding a place as a settler, the 
words borrowed to refer to indigenous weapons, tools, social practice, 
to refer to them, etc. Ramson looks at the nature and texture of the 
lexis and the cultural images they may project on the basis of two 
methodological principles. The first was chosen in Ch. Four where the 
NZE dictionary was compared with the AND. Here, Ramson, just 
surfed the dictionary and picked up what he found interestin. In Ch.s 
Five and Six, entitled "Waste Land to Wonderland" and "Good man de 
Queen", respectively, he uses a thematic grouping of items by 
chronological stages of some fifty years. That approach highlights, he 
says, the attitudes of speakers towards the language across time. 
During the first fifty years (to around 1830) the notion of terra nullius 
developed and one talked of 'crown land' (1789) and 'waste land' 
(1804; really an Americanism) as well as, confusingly, of 'waste lands 
of the Crown' (1826). (The concept of waste land was important, 
incidentally, when reserves were set up there and when colonial 
governments created the office of the 'protector' of Aborigines.) These 
fifty years produced terms for settlement and location, the 
movement 'up the country', the perception of the landscape, 
classification of land as 'wood' or as 'bush', etc. The second fifty years 
(to nearly 1890) creates more words for the exploration of 'the 
opening up of the country' and occupational terms. The third fifty 
years (to nearly 1940) cover Federation in 1901 and the years of 
World War I and those leading to the second war. They (should) cover 
the early years of Aboriginal activism, but this he sees only in the final 
fifty years.

An interesting chapter is Ch. Six on the contributions from Aboriginal 
languages. Their stock of words is collected in Ramson/Dixon/Thomas 
(1990) but Ramson expands the concept somewhat when he says 
that he includes words of English origin "but with meanings specific to 
an Aboriginal context" (p 129). We learn of names for the 'first' 
Australians such as Australian, applied first to Aborigines (1814), then 
to whites (1822). Generally speaking, Aborigines were referred to as 
natives (1770-), blacks, blackfellows and blackies, and by other 
derogatory terms. Americanisms too occur such as 'squaw' 
(1837), 'negro' (1845) or from the Pacific, 'cannibal' (1838). We learn 
that names of weapons, of dwellings and domestic tools abound 
during the first fifty years. The so-called 'caring' or protection period is 
dealt with in detail. The term 'Protector' is discussed but its racist 
connotations ignored. I pass over the rich assembly of data here and 
remaining chapters to come to general points. 

One may have theoretical reservations in many cases. Why is 'native' 
an Australianism, in the first place? Why is 'black' or 'negro'? They 
certainly are not Aboriginal contributions. Are they then the words of 
English origin with a specific Australian cognitive, denotative or 
referential 'meaning'? All of them have been used for the dark-skinned 
local populations in America, Africa, the Pacific or Australia throughout 
colonial times. The only justification for treating them as Australiansims 
one can see is that they 'refer' to Australian Aborigines. But if Ramson 
means by 'Australian meaning', acts of reference (a pragmatic 
dimension), would one not have to include as an Australianism the 
word 'local' in expressions like 'local discussion', used to refer to 
debates taking place in Australia? The situation is, of course, different 
with Aboriginal loans, which have an Australian etymology, or words 
like 'shicer', which is a German loan word with an Australian sense 
development (it is a name for an 'unproductive gold mine'), etc. 
Ramson fails to be clear about the concept of Australianism and other 
terms. 

The final chapter, Ch. Ten, concludes on the future of AusE:

"There is ... every indication that the creativity that attended 
Australia's discovery and exploration is finished, that the raw material 
[of the language] will be the same here as elsewhere, that 
globalisation will prevail, and the the other factors mentioned above 
will play a role in reducing the annual Australian output of 
neologisms." (p 243)

The AND is a monument to a nation at a particular phase of its history. 
What separates us from that phase is a great gulf which grows ever 
deeper, and from the other side of which we will never see more 
clearly than we do now. (p 247)

The tension between localization and globalization is a major problem 
in and for all varieties of English. Ramson sees that tension but 
overlooks the fact that it was there for most of Australia's history. The 
language of the law, of medicine, of mechanical engineering, etc., has 
never undergone any level of localization -- in Australia, in India, etc. 
The problem here is that past research has limited itself to the 
localization of English and ignored the language of these international 
domains. The common law, the plain English movement have not and 
do not have local vocabularies -- except standard terms 
like 'condominium' for 'owner-occupied flat', etc. Often research 
overemphasizes the role of AmE (today) but that language had been 
international all the time. Leitner (2004) covers some ground 
regarding the global pressures and the use of 'non-national' forms of 
English during the 19th century.

A final point regarding the claim that the lexis of the AND and the one 
discussed in LexIm brings out cultural images of the nation. The 
choice of headlines is illuminating since Ramson sometimes uses them 
to suggest dominant images. Thus, "A people who need care" and "a 
deeper understanding?" (both Ch. Six) are, we are to understand, 
such images. Do they? The caring period was, as it turned out, a time 
of extreme racism, killings, exploitation and a policy of segregation. 
That is not discussed and Ramson fails to highlight the opposing 
trends in whatever he believes to be images. Headlines like "Weapons 
and implements" (p 139), "Black gentry" (p 138) or "Occupational 
terms" (several times) certainly do not project images. They may, if at 
all, draw attention to a dominant interest of the colonizers in some 
area. Are we at the end of this book clearer about the relationship 
between the lexis of a language (variety) and culture than Wierzbicka 
(1997) has told us? 

As I said at the beginning, LexIm is a very personal story of a 
dictionary. It compares with Arthur Delbridge's article "The making of 
The Macquarie" (1985), which is, fortunately, one might say, a lot 
briefer. LexIm is rich in data, but, given its length of 255 pages and its 
goal of relating language and culture, one cannot avoid the conclusion 
that it lacks analysis and is uncertain about what images the AND 
throws up of Australia's culture over the past two hundred years. It is 
perhaps best read as  a personal story and be entertained by the 
excellence of style, the pace the author is able to create as the AND 
was moving forward. 

REFERENCES

Delbridge, Arthur, 1985. The making of The Macquarie, in: J.E. Clark, 
ed., The Cultivated Australian. Festschrift in honour of Arthur 
Delbridge. Hamburg: Buske. 273-288.

Dixon, R. W. M., W. S. Ramson, Mandy Thomas, 1990. Australian 
Aboriginal words in English: Their origin and meaning. Melbourne: 
Oxford University Press.

Leitner, Gerhard, 2004. Australia's many voices. Australian English -- 
the national language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1997. Understanding cultures through their key 
words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Studied Australia's Englishes and other languages used in Australia 
for a long time and has recently published two books on the matter. 
Other interests include English in Asia, language policy and planning 
and the sociolinguistics of media languages.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1498