2005/11/16 by Charlotte brewer, Charlotte Brewer · 42 citations
Arts and Humanities · Computer Science · Psychology · #Art #Classics #Etymology #Historical Linguistics and Language Studies #History #Lexicography #Lexicography and Language Studies #Linguistics #Literature #Natural Language Processing Techniques #Personality #Personality psychology #Philosophy #Psychology #Social psychology
paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/j.1467-968x.2005.00154.x
published in Transactions of the Philological Society 103(3), 261-301 (Wiley)
openalex publication_date 2005/11/16 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
Although the OED is generally regarded as an impersonal, objective document of comprehensive authority, it is possible to detect inconsistencies in it which reflect the personalities of the different authors who have compiled it at different times. These inconsistencies are particularly evident in the application of usage labels and comments, which often tell us as much about the lexicographers’ own preferences as they do about usage in any more general sense. They also reflect the public desire, from the late nineteenth century onwards, that this iconic dictionary should act as a guardian, not just a record, of the English language. These matters are investigated here through an analysis of the usage labels and notes, together with prefatory remarks, in R. W. Burchfield's twentieth-century Supplement to the OED. The treatment of Burchfield's material in the second edition of the OED is also surveyed, as are the usage labelling and commentary of the current, third edition of the OED.