Introduction

FORUM DIALECT LABELING IN DICTIONARIES Introduction Joan Houston Hall Fortunately for lexicographers, those who consult the dictionary are not usually critical. In fact, almost the only individual to approach the sacred book in the spirit of a doubter is the lexicographer himself. (Weekley 782) Members of the DSNA are not like most users of "the dictionary," however, and do not come to the "sacred" book with the "childlike confidence that the dictionary, like photography, cannot lie" (Weekley 782). Readers of thisjournal will be neither shocked to discover inconsistencies of treatment in a dictionary nor disillusioned to find the occasional error. They will be interested rather than dismayed to see how lexicographers disagree with one another, not only on individual entries, but on major policies. The following essays by practicing lexicographers, on the application of dialect and usage labels, provide instructive discussions of how particular policies were made, how well they worked, and how they differed from one dictionary to another. The common thread throughout is the recognition that dictionaries are human enterprises: no matter how carefully crafted the policy or how thorough the guidelines, the end product inevitably exhibits variation based on specificjudgments by particular individuals. The introductory essay by Frederic G. Cassidy surveys broadly the history of attempts by lexicographers to guide their readers. Such attempts have varied from that of including questionable words in the dictionaries and then warning readers of their archaism, foreignness, or inkhorn character; to condemning words for their barbarism, vulgarity , or illegitimacy; or to denying their existence by simply expunging them from the books. Over time, an evolution from individual and extremely subjective judgments toward a much more nearly standard and objective system has inexorably taken place. Introduction95 The essays by E.W. Gilman, George Goebel, and Luanne von Schneidemesser all provide glimpses into the recent end of that evolutionary spectrum. From the standpoint of insiders (or insiders one generation removed), these lexicographers detail the specific problems that confronted the staffs of their dictionaries in determining when and how to let readers know the status of a word. Gilman's article reveals some of the background of the shifts in practice between Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (W2) and Webster's Third New International Dictionary (W3), shifts that resulted in an unprecedented furor among reviewers of W3. His frank discussion gives a behind-thescenes picture of the difficulties editors encountered in following the labeling directives provided by P.B. Gove; it also clarifies some seeming inconsistencies of practice by explaining how editors were to make judgments regarding labels for such entries as slang and regionalisms. In the essays by Goebel and von Schneidemesser, we are provided detailed examinations of the policies and practices used by the editors of the Dictionary ofAmerican RegionalEnglish (DARE) in their attempt to be as objective as possible in assigning social and regional labels , respectively. Both authors conclude that the task is more easily set out than accomplished. Even the most carefully constructed guidelines cannot anticipate all of the problems that will arise, and even the most cooperative of editorial teams cannot guarantee that they will always interpret the evidence in the same way. Experience over time has caused the DARE editors to be more cautious in their application of both social and regional labels. Applying such labels in school and college dictionaries is also difficult, as the papers by David Barnhart and Virginia McDavid make clear. Limitations of size are always a concern, and in school dictionaries simplicity of expression is essential. Though the Thorndike-Barnhart school dictionaries were first published before most of the work on American dialect geography had been completed, Barnhart notes that the editors had made concerted efforts to label words as "dialect," or as "British," "English," "Scottish," etc. As the work of American linguistic geographers became available, it was consulted regularly; how much of it was actually incorporated in the school dictionaries, however , depended on other factors, such as the frequency with which a particular word occurred in the books on a standard list of titles for young readers. Although modern editions of Barnhart school dictionaries will surely draw on the labeling evidence provided by such works as DARE, space and style...