Biblical Citations as a Stylistic Standard in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries

Hallen, Cynthia L.; Spackman, T. Benjamin

doi:10.4000/lexis.490

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Miyoshi (2008) compares Webster's and Johnson's use of verbal examples in their respective dictionaries. Hallen and Spackman (2010) conclude that Webster has more biblical citations in his dictionary than Johnson included in his.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…That is, under letter L in Webster's 1828 dictionary The Bible is the most cited source. According to Hallen and Spackman (2010), under letter S, Webster cited 378 (three hundred seventy-eight) different sources, The Bible being the third most cited. In 1833, Webster mentions The Bible more than he mentions American authors (see Table 3 below).…”

Section: Contradictions and Regularities In Webster's Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, considering that he frequently cites from philosophical works, it becomes evident that Webster selected his examples not only for linguistic reasons, but also on the basis of their moral value, or, as Snyder puts it, his "writing never divorced the intellectual and the moral" (2002, 13). Nevertheless, when referring to the citations in Webster's 1828 dictionary, it is important to consider that he made use of Johnson's citations (see Hallen and Spackman 2010;Meirelles 2021;Miyoshi 2008;Reed 1962). For this reason, it is possible that the citations in the dictionary do not strictly reflect Webster's preferences.…”

Section: Contradictions and Regularities In Webster's Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contradictions and Regularities in Webster’s Works

Meirelles

2023

RAEI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noah Webster believed that a pure, regular and better form of the language existed, usually represented by a former variety that is more appropriate. However, he also believed that British English was not a model for American English because it did not follow “the analogy of the language.” Accordingly, he started a search to find the “true principles” of the English language. At that moment, his writings became more descriptive than prescriptive, but, because he was a successful textbook writer, he could not use the same model when he wrote schoolbooks. Consequently, his language analyses and his educational material became contradictory. Moreover, his earlier works and his later works are also inconsistent. This paper investigates the many inconsistencies found in Webster’s writings and tries to interpret them under the light of linguistics historiography. The results show that the contradiction in Webster’s work originates from his continued development as a language scholar and from his uncertainties arising from the linguistic practices of the time.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Contradictions and Regularities In Webster's Workmentioning

confidence: 99%