The Forefront of Lexicography: User-Generated Dictionaries
It is often said that English is the most difficult language to learn. Filled with words borrowed from other languages, and erratic spelling and pronunciation patterns, English is a language that can be slippery to grasp, even to the native speaker. Partly due to a complex linguistic history, partly due to the exponential rate at which it is growing, English could never be considered a fixed language.
While some past advocates of a fixed English, such as George Orwell or Jonathan Swift, have decried the constant reinvention of our language, there has never been an official committee to prescribe the use of English, such as the Académie Française of Paris or the Accademia della Crusca of Florence (Winchester, 27-29). Considering that organizations such as these seek to maintain the purity of a given language, an English equivalent association would be next-to-impossible, owing to the gamut of languages from which it is made up. A historic combination of languages such as Celtic, Latin, Norse, French, and German (Merriam-Webster), the English language reads like a timeline of invasions and settlements. Given the dynamic history of English, it is no surprise that it continues to grow and evolve at a exponential rate. Therefore, its dictionaries must also be flexible, by describing the actual usage of terms, rather than prescribing how they should be used (Winchester, 29). That being said, lexicographers do aim to standardize the language through fixing the spelling of words, along with providing authoritative and comprehensive definitions. Indeed, historically, as S.H. Steinberg points out in Five Hundred Years of Printing, "the rules laid down by the author of a grammar or dictionary became binding and stopped the free development of the language – at least so far as its appearance in print is concerned" (58). However, this interpretation offers but a limited assessment of the development of language. While English may be standardized according to custom in the various countries in which it is spoken, it is very much a living language: continuously evolving and ever-changing.
Although traditionally dictionaries have attempted to explain the usage of language through accurate definitions curated by professional lexicographers, the interactive nature of the Internet has made room for a new linguistic tool: user-generated dictionaries. Online user-generated dictionaries, such as the Urban Dictionary (www.urbandictionary.com), depart from the established role of the dictionary as a repository of authoritative information to act as a forum for users to explore the social uses of language, make commentary on cultural trends, and respond to the definitions created by others. And there is no vocabulary better than slang to inspire a host of creative definitions. Colloquialisms and slang provide an ideal example of the mutability of the English language and are exemplary of the manner in which speakers of a language change it to suit their needs.
Many slang dictionaries exist online and in print, such as Slang: The Topical Dictionary of Americanisms (Dickson, 2006), The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (Victor & Dalzell, 2007), The Dictionary of Playground Slang (Chris Lewis, 2003), the Double-Tongued Dictionary (http://www.doubletongued.org/), and A Dictionary of Slang (http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/). While the intent of these reference works is both to entertain and to explain, they are collected and presented through an editorial process, much like traditional English dictionaries. Words are cultivated from the street, playground, or media, and set to the page with the standard lexicographical format of other dictionaries. For example, the following definition is taken from the Double-Tongued Dictionary (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/boo_word/):
boo word n. an expression or term that represents a topic that is unpopular or unwelcome.
Although the word being defined may be unfamiliar to the reader, the format of the definition is certainly not. All that is missing is the phonetic pronunciation of it. This appears to be a no-nonsense explanation of a curious term to outsiders. While the content of these dictionaries may be unusual as far as dictionaries go, the purpose that they serve is the same. They seek to provide an authoritative definition that explains to the reader how the term is commonly used.
However, departing from the traditional lexicographical process is another form of slang dictionary found online: the user-generated dictionary. For, who better to describe the meaning of slang than the users themselves? Sites such as the Urban Dictionary (www.urbandictionary.com), Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page), and Pseudodictionary (http://www.pseudodictionary.com/) invite users to create their own definitions for the words that they use. Contrary to the traditional role of the dictionary as a fixed, authoritative, and accurate reference work, these online dictionaries value the dynamic nature of language and individual interpretations of word meaning.
Perhaps the best example to explore this difference is the Urban Dictionary, which has both an online and print version. Like the other user-generated dictionaries mentioned above, most of the entries in the Urban Dictionary are slang terms. Many words have multiple definitions, offering a host of different interpretations to the term. In these interpretations, most of which are humourous, users provide social commentary on the words at hand and the trends that gave rise to their use. User feedback on the definitions is incorporated into the site, though a thumbs-up/thumbs-down rating system. As such, the only quality control that exists for the online dictionary is through the opinion of individual users – placing any element of authority in the hands of the readers themselves.
Two printed versions also exist, Urban Dictionary (2005) and Mo' Urban Dictionary (2007), both published by Andrews McMeel?. While the printed versions are based on user content from the site, site creator Aaron Peckman selected the "funniest, wittiest, and truest submissions," (Peckman 2005, vii)) taking on the role of a lexicographer in moving the online content to print. In the transition to book form, the dynamic and interactive nature of the definitions is lost, and replaced by a set of definitions that is authoritative and fixed.
An example of the differences between the two mediums, created from the same online content, can be seen in the definitions for the term "leet". The printed version of the Urban Dictionary provides a straightforward definition:
Leet Elite. Often used to describe someone with good computer skills. Dude, I just hacked Microsoft.com. I'm leet. (Peckman 2005, 207)
The online version, however, presents 42 definitions of the word, some of them serious, some silly, and others reactionary. Below are excerpts of some of the definitions, which can run up to 350 words long.
"Originating in the early 1980's, leet speak was first used by hackers as a way to prevent their websites/newsgroups from being found by simple keyword searches. Leet speak grew and became popular in online games such as Doom in the early 1990's as a way of suggesting that you were a hacker (h4x0r), and therefore to be feared. Leet, or 1337, is a short form of "elite," commonly used by video gamers to suggest that they are skilled. Generally, "leet speak" is not used these days by anyone who could actually be considered "elite." Leet speak has been widely adopted by North American culture and these days is used by pretty much anyone. (Aka., n00bs.) Leet: l337, Hacker: h4x0r, skills: s|<1llz"
"A way for virgin losers with small penises who live in their parents' basements to feel cool or special by typing so as to replace letters with numbers or phonetic equivalents that are recognizable to others of their nerdly kind… I am unaccomplished virgin loser with a small penis; therefore, I try to make myself feel better by communicating through leet...or 1337...I'm shpeshial."
"Yes, leet means elite… Your insulting or not insulting definition isn't worth putting in just because you (just like everybody else) know that stupid little fact. It also isn't funny. Yes, leet is a language, now used by gamers, some deserving of using such a language and some not. Despite apparent popular belief, it is not stupid or idiotic, at least when used in moderation and in context. *n: 1 |2 1337 (Direct translation: I r leet. English: I am elite.)
adj: That dude's so leet!* "
"1t'5 4 v4r14t10n 0f t3h w0rd 3l1t3 u53d by 14m3r5 wh0 th1nk th3y 4r3 3l1t3... 0ft3n us3d w1th 4r3 v4r1at10n 0f d1g1t5 1n5t34d 0f l3tt3r5...0ft3n u53d by 5cr1pt k1dd135 t0 d35cr18e th31r 5k1ll. (0ri9in4l d3finiti0n by 5cav3ng3r) Translation: It's a variation of the word Elite, used by lamers who think they are Elite... often used with are variation of digits instead of letters... Often used by script kiddies to describe their skill. (Original definition by scavenger)"
(Urban Dictionary, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=leet&page=1)
Although it can be taken for granted that certain concessions must be made in condensing a site with millions of definitions into a 343-page book, a great deal has been lost in translation. While the printed version aims to present the reader with a usable and accurate definition to decipher slang, along with an amusing example of usage, the site contains pages of elaborations demonstrating not only the meaning of the word, but evaluations of the social phenomenon that it describes. In the online version, users have built layers of social commentary into their definitions of the words, often in a humourous and biting manner. As such, the Urban Dictionary online acts as much as a forum for expressing one's views as it does a repository of arcane and trendy language.
Far from the cynical definition of dictionary offered in The Devil's Dictionary, "A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic," (Bierce, 32) online user-generated dictionaries offer the opportunity for the exact opposite. Not only do they provide users a venue to create and define new words, but also to voice their opinions on social trends. Mimicking the kind of interaction that occurs on online chatboards and forums, users are also able to respond to one another's entries and are able to exert a form of quality control through a rating system. Taking advantage of the dynamic nature of the Internet, the Urban Dictionary has added to lexicography an element of dynamism: definitions are pluralistic and open to reinterpretation by every user. Moving away from the traditional role of reference works as sources of static information and into a participatory activity, it might be said that user-generated dictionaries are reinventing the very nature of dictionaries themselves.
Works Cited
A Dictionary of Slang. http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/ (Accessed April 10th, 2008).
Bierce, Ambrose. The Devil's Dictionary. Quoted in Winchester, Simon. The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Dickson, Paul. Slang: The Topical Dictionary of Americanisms. New York: Walker & Company, 2006.
Double-Tongued Dictionary. http://www.doubletongued.org/ (Accessed April 10th, 2008).
Lewis, Chris. The Dictionary of Playground Slang. London: Allison & Busby, 2003.
Merriam-Webster. "What are the origins of the English Language?" Merriam-Webster Online, 2007. http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/history.htm (accessed April 10th, 2008).
Peckman, Aaron. Mo' Urban Dictionary. Kansas: Andrews McMeel?, 2007.
Peckman, Aaron. Urban Dictionary. Kansas: Andrews McMeel?, 2005.
Pseudodictionary. http://www.pseudodictionary.com/ (Accessed April 10th, 2008).
Steinberg, S.H.. Five Hundred Years of Printing. London: The British Library, 1996.
Urban Dictionary. www.urbandictionary.com (Accessed April 10th, 2008).
Victor, Terry & Tom Dalzell. The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. London: Routledge, 2007.
Wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page (Accessed April 10th, 2008).
Winchester, Simon. The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
... --jmax, Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:45:19 -0700 reply
Nice treatment. This is what Tim O'Reilly called "the architecture of participation." I've heard this argument made before in defense of Wikipedia; hats off to you for pointing out its applicability to dictionaries as well. While most of us will hold on to our trusty Oxfords for some time yet, it's important to realize the same forces that drive encyclopedia publishers out of business are at work on dictionaries as well.