From This Day in History (history.com)
February 1, 1884: The first portion, or fascicle, of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), considered the most comprehensive and accurate dictionary of the English language, is published. Today, the OED is the definitive authority on the meaning, pronunciation and history of over half a million English words, past and present.
Plans for the dictionary began in 1857 when members of London's Philological Society, who believed there were no up-to-date, error-free English dictionaries available, decided to produce one that would cover all vocabulary from the Anglo-Saxon period (1150 A.D.) to the present.
Conceived of as a four-volume, 6,400-page work, it was estimated the project would take 10 years to finish. In fact, it took over 40 years until the 125th and final fascicle was published in April 1928 and the full dictionary was complete–at over 400,000 words and phrases in 10 volumes–and published under the title A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles.
From This Day in History (history.com)
Unlike most English dictionaries, which only list present-day common meanings, the OED provides a detailed chronological history for every word and phrase, citing quotations from a wide range of sources, including classic literature and cookbooks. The OED is famous for its lengthy cross-references and etymologies.
The verb “set” merits the OED’s longest entry, at approximately 60,000 words and detailing over 430 uses.
No sooner was the OED finished than editors began updating it. A supplement, containing new entries and revisions, was published in 1933 and the original dictionary was reprinted in 12 volumes and officially renamed the Oxford English Dictionary.
Between 1972 and 1986, an updated 4-volume supplement was published, with new terms from the continually evolving English language plus more words and phrases from North America, Australia, the Caribbean, New Zealand, South Africa and South Asia.
From This Day in History (history.com)
In 1984, Oxford University Press embarked on a five-year, multi-million-dollar project to create an electronic version of the dictionary. The effort required 120 people just to type the pages from the print edition and 50 proofreaders to check their work. The online version of the dictionary has been active since 2000.
At a whopping 20 volumes weighing over 137 pounds, it would reportedly take one person 120 years to type all 59 million words in the OED.
The Oxford English Dictionary has been the last word on the English language for over a century, yet we count on its wisdom and authority without necessarily considering how it came to be. What is the history of the OED? With hundreds of staff, thousands of contributors, and more than 500,000 defined words at its core, the story of this extraordinary living document is revealed below.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
In 1857, a proposal was put before the Philological Society, a London-based organization devoted to the scholarly study of language. The proposal addressed the deficiency of existing English language dictionaries and called for the compilation of a New English Dictionary (as it was originally called). Spearheaded by Richard Chenevix Trench, Herbert Coleridge, and Frederick Furnivall, this was to see a complete re-examination of the English language from Anglo-Saxon times onward – an ambitious project that would eventually require far more time and energy than they originally anticipated.
The Dictionary was to be based on actual evidence of words in use, taken from printed sources dating from all periods of the language’s history. Coleridge was named as the original editor and he and Furnivall amassed a group of volunteer readers to scour English literature and extract quotations to illustrate the usage of words. These quotations were sent in on small pieces of paper collectively known as "slips."
From The OED itself (oed.com)
Coleridge died in 1861 and was succeeded as editor by Furnivall. His enthusiasm and energy were unmatched by his work ethic, however, and little progress was made over subsequent years.
In 1879, a new chapter began, when Oxford University Press agreed to publish the work. It was also at this time that a new editor was agreed upon from within the members of the Philological Society, James Murray. Murray was a self-taught scholar from the lowlands of Scotland who had showed an interest in language from a very early age.
Murray was a grammar-school teacher from 1855 to 1885, during which time he also wrote a famous article on the English language for Encyclopædia Britannica (1878) and served as president of the Philological Society (1878–80, 1882–84). (from Britannica)
As editor of the Dictionary, he rejuvenated the volunteer reading program and established a small team of staff in an iron shed he labelled the Scriptorium, first at his home in Mill Hill, London, and later at his home in Oxford.
His children (eventually there were eleven) were paid pocket money to sort the dictionary slips into alphabetical order upon arrival.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
Murray had estimated that the entire Dictionary would take ten years to complete. After five years, the first part (or fascicle to use the technical term) was issued in 1884. It covered A-ant which made clear that a much more comprehensive work was being produced than had been imagined by the Philological Society almost thirty years earlier.
In fact, Dictionary work relied on so much correspondence that a post box was installed right outside Murray's Oxford home, where it still stands today.
To expedite work on the Dictionary, a second editor was appointed to work alongside Murray. His name was Henry Bradley, and he was later joined by two other co-editors, William Craigie, and Charles Onions.
Each of them worked on different sections of the alphabet with their own teams of assistants, eventually all working in what is now Oxford’s History of Science Museum, while Murray and his team continued toiling away in the Scriptorium.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
The four editors and their staff worked steadily, producing fascicle after fascicle, until finally, in April 1928, the last part was published to critical acclaim.
Instead of 6,400 pages in four volumes as originally planned, the Dictionary culminated in ten volumes containing over 250,000 main entries and almost 2 million quotations. It was published under the imposing name A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles although it had also come to be known as the Oxford English Dictionary.
Sadly, neither Murray nor Bradley lived to see its completion. Murray died in 1915; the work to which he had devoted his life represented an achievement unprecedented in the history of publishing anywhere in the world, with the Dictionary taking its place as the ultimate authority on the English language..
From The OED itself (oed.com)
An exhilarating aspect of a living language is that it continually changes. This means that no dictionary is ever really finished. After fifty years of work on the first iteration of the Dictionary, the editors must have found this exhausting to contemplate.
Nevertheless, as soon as the original ten volumes were completed, the remaining two editors, Craigie and Onions, began to compile a single-volume Supplement to the Dictionary, published in 1933.
At the same time, the First Edition was re-issued in twelve volumes and the work was formally given its current title—the Oxford English Dictionary.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
After the Second World War, Oxford University Press decided to re-establish the headquarters of the OED and embark upon the revision of the 1933 Supplement.
In 1957, a century after the Philological Society first conceived the notion of a New English Dictionary, Robert Burchfield took up the editorship of the new Supplement with a fresh cohort of staff and once again solicited the help of readers.
Initially intended as a single volume work of around 1,300 pages that would take seven years to complete, the Supplement expanded to a four-volume work of some 5,750 pages published between 1972 and 1986. It was one of the last major books in the UK to be set in type using the hot-metal process.
In the early 1980s, the Press began to consider how to bring this monumental dictionary into the modern age. It was clear that the traditional methods of dictionary compilation were no longer suitable. A decision was made to combine the First Edition and Supplements before embarking on any revision of the text.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
This required the data to be converted into electronic form, upon which the texts could be amalgamated and edited, all with the help of external providers.
Project managers and systems engineers would now be required alongside lexicographers and the Press duly set about this with the formation of the New Oxford English Dictionary Project in 1984.
Co-editors John Simpson and Edmund Weiner oversaw a core group of lexicographers in Oxford who reviewed, corrected, and edited the new electronic text, as well as adding 5,000 new words and senses.
In all, the project team succeeded in accomplishing around 85% of its work by software, but the remaining 15% required the critical eye of the editors. The culmination of this mammoth task was the setting in type and subsequent printing of the Second Edition of the OED, published in 1989 on time and to great acclaim. The finished work filled 22,000 pages bound into twenty substantial volumes.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
In the 1990s, work began on a comprehensive revision of the OED. The aim was to create a completely updated text, with each entry being comprehensively reviewed in light of new documentary evidence and modern developments in scholarship, alongside the creation of new entries.
This was the first time that material written by James Murray and his contemporaries had been edited since the First Edition was completed in 1928.
The existence of an electronic version of the Dictionary made other publishing formats possible. In 1987 a CD-ROM of the First Edition was produced, and in 1992 the Second Edition was also published on a single compact disc—a great contrast to the hefty twenty-volume work that took up four feet of shelf space and weighed 150 pounds!
CD-ROM publication proved a great success. The digital format revolutionized the way people used the Dictionary to search and retrieve information. Its creation was a window into the technological advancements that the Oxford English Dictionary was to make next.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
In 2000, the OED Online was launched, making the Dictionary more accessible than ever before and allowing for work on the Third Edition to be uploaded onto the online version in regular quarterly updates.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
Fast forward to 2023 and the OED Online has undergone a website transformation, resulting in the platform you are using today.
Regular three-month updates are still published to the OED Online, which can be viewed on our updates page. This ambitious undertaking, which has been a work in progress for over twenty five years, will result in a completely revitalized Oxford English Dictionary.
The ambitious goals which the Philological Society set out in 1857 seem modest in comparison with the phenomenal achievement which their initiative set in motion.
The Oxford English Dictionary is a living document that has been growing and changing for over a century and a half. Far more than a convenient place to look up words and their origins, the Oxford English Dictionary is an irreplaceable part of English culture. It not only provides an important record of the evolution of our language, but also documents the continuing development of our society. The Oxford English Dictionary is still as relevant today as it was in the past, always developing, and it is certain to continue in this role as we move forward in our digital world.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
The OED has always been a collaborative project with contributions from volunteer readers, proof-readers, consultants, and staff. It can be regarded as one of the first academic crowdsourcing projects of its kind. This was emphasized in each of the prefaces which accompanied the fascicles of the First Edition as they were issued.
From the very start, the volunteer reading programme was at the centre of the project, which saw members of the public read books and extract quotations for use in the Dictionary. The number of people who contributed quotations to the First Edition alone runs into four figures, with many individuals sending in thousands of quotations each.
In order to fill the gaps in the material already collected, lists (of "desiderata") were issued to the general public highlighting words for which additional quotations were needed, thus generating more submissions.
Professional knowledge was also garnered from experts in their fields. We still solicit help from the public and consultants in much the same way today.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
It was (and remains) the role of the editors and assistants to bring order to all the quotations submitted, by transforming them into dictionary entries, aided further by the many volunteer proof-readers who checked and commented on progress. Dictionary staff from across the history of the OED have always been hugely committed to the project with several holding posts for around half a century.
This commitment was exhibited by James Murray’s own children, as all eleven of them helped on the OED from an early age, sorting slips at home. His eldest son, Harold, was a prolific reader for the Dictionary (credited with 27,000 quotations by 1888) and his eldest daughter, Hilda, worked as a paid assistant for a short time. However, it was Elsie and Rosfrith who perhaps made the most significant contribution, working as members of editorial staff for over 20 years each.
From The OED itself (oed.com)
Peter Gilliver, Executive Editor, OED, has compiled a list of the main contributors to the First Edition of the OED which can be accessed here. For some of the more prolific or well-known contributors from the First Edition and Supplements, we provide a profile and sample of work below.
First Edition Volunteers
Thomas Austin Jemima Brown
Thomas Brushfield Henry Hucks Gibbs
Fitzedward Hall Thomas Henderson
William Minor Job Pierson
Edith and Ellen Thompson William B. R. Wilson
From The OED itself (oed.com)
First Edition Staff
Charles Balk Henry Bayliss
Eleanor Bradley Jessie Coulson
Wilfrid Lewis Arthur Maling
Frederick Sweatman J. R. R. Tolkien
Walter Worrall James Wyllie
Edith and Ellen Thompson (1848-1929 / 1857-1930)
Sisters Edith and Ellen Perronet Thompson began working as volunteer readers for the OED around 1880. Edith was a historian, best known for her History of England (1872); Ellen was a novelist and wrote several historical essays for The Gentleman's Magazine. Together they supplied thousands of quotations for the OED (jointly credited with 15,000 in 1888) and proof-read from D onwards. Edith also sub-edited in C and gave advice on historical terms.
Jessie Coulson née Senior (1903-1987)
Graduate in English from the University of Leeds (and likely taught by Tolkien), who started work on the OED in 1924, principally on the 1933 Supplement. She went on to work on the Little Oxford Dictionary (1930) and to edit the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933), the latter being the first Oxford dictionary to bear a woman's name on the title page (now Coulson). She continued to be a valuable lexicographer to OUP well into her seventies, also producing a Russian–English dictionary in 1975.
Frederick Sweatman (1873-1936)
Son of an Oxford printer-foreman and on the Bodleian library staff, Oxford, from 1888. Joined Murray’s staff in 1890 and became expert at the bibliographical standardization of quotation references and the verification of quotations in the Bodleian. He transferred to Onions’ staff upon Murray’s death in 1915 and continued to work on the Dictionary, and latterly the 1933 Supplement, until 1933. Also assisted Charles Onions with the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933).
J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)
Member of Bradley's editorial staff from 1919-1920, Tolkien’s contribution to the OED was in the range waggle-warlock. After his stint on the Dictionary, Tolkien went on to publish many works on Old and Middle English, later taking up professorships in Anglo-Saxon and English Language and Literature at Oxford. Tolkien is best known today for his fantasy fiction, most notably The Hobbit (1937) and the Lord of the Rings trilogy (1954-55).
Christopher Collier (1930/1-2010)
Spent almost his entire life in Brisbane, much of it working for the Queensland Patents Office, but also became an obsessive collector of quotation evidence from local newspapers, particularly the Brisbane Courier-Mail. From the early 1960s he sent cuttings and quotations from this and other papers to the offices of the OED Supplement, often packed up in cereal packets. He later performed the same service for the Australian National Dictionary. The number of quotations he supplied to both projects is in excess of 100,000.
Controversy
Importance of OED (Charlotte Brewer, Oxford Univ.)
Many of the quotations used as evidence of English usage through the ages were from the pearls of English literary culture – the Bible, Shakespeare, Milton, Pope etc. – and the lexicographers drew on a variety of more specialised sources too, from every imaginable discipline (science, technology, business, art – from how to make a carriage to how to grow cabbages).
The OED, as it was eventually named, wasn’t just a history of the language therefore but also a history of "English" thoughts, history and lived experience over the course of the time that the language had been in existence and written down. And in fact, soon after it started appearing in successive printed installments from the 1880s on, the OED became a symbol of the English-speaking people: their thoughts and feelings, passions and beliefs—not just the language in the abstract. That makes the dictionary a wonderful cultural as well as linguistic record—and it is still unmatched as a record of examples of written English and of historical lexical scholarship.
Importance of OED (Charlotte Brewer, Oxford Univ.)
The largest single source was Shakespeare with around 33,300 quotations. When you realise that the dictionary is based on its quotations, you start thinking: "Does that really reflect Shakespeare’s influence on the language?"
The second most-quoted person is Walter Scott—the most published author in the 19th century and incredibly popular among the educated upper and middle classes--exactly the sort of people who were searching out the quotations!
Then you have the Bible, Milton, Dickens—no women in the top 12 or 15 most quoted authors, in fact no women at all until George Eliot with around 3,000 quotations.
Obviously, what goes in determines what comes out. So when you investigate the quotation sources comparatively you can start to see that it tells you as much about the people making the dictionary as about the language itself.
Importance of OED (Charlotte Brewer, Oxford Univ.)
On the one hand you think "This is culturally biased," on the other hand: "This is a fantastic repository of information about dominant late-19th-century culture and how it was thought that great writers created language."
In other words the choice of which words to include, how to define them and which sources to quote tells you a huge amount about, for example, historical attitudes towards literature, race, sex and sexuality, and so on.
Not being state sponsored means that the dictionary has never had to conform to any top-down notion of what "good" or "bad" language is.
In fact, one of the things that marks out the OED is that it's based on real evidence of usage: it's the only comprehensive historical dictionary of English and, crucially, it was the first English dictionary to determine that its function was to describe the language as it is rather than to set it down as it should be.
That has been a very important principle of lexicography into the 20th century.
Importance of OED (Charlotte Brewer, Oxford Univ.)
That having been said, it's incredibly difficult to be completely objective and there are all sorts of examples where you can find the editors slipping their own views in, or saying things like: "Despite the fact that most people use the word in this way, it should be used in the other way."
So―this is one of the fascinating things about the OED—while you initially think: "This is a monument to impartial, objective scholarship," you start looking at words to do with correctness or sexuality or with regionality, politics or whatever and you realise that despite the vast quantities of authoritative lexical record and scholarship, there is also, inevitably, inconsistency, bias and human error.
Though in its commitment to objective descriptivism the OED has sometimes found itself under attack―there was a case in 2007 where McDonald’s got very upset about the OED (the newly revised, online OED) having put "McJob" in the dictionary. They felt―rightly so!―that it was pejorative: it was recording a pejorative reference. Their commercial interests were at stake and they wanted OED to take it out, and of course the dictionary refused, as it should.
Importance of OED (Charlotte Brewer, Oxford Univ.)
The evidence of sustained usage over time was there, in the public record, and that was that. it's a bit Orwellian to think that the dictionary's job should be to restrict people’s language―and that that can lead to restricting how people think.
But it is also true that people feel that dictionaries have a responsibility to educate and to promote the "right" sort of ideas and culture. For example, a story that popped up again just recently is about how the Oxford Junior Dictionary has, in recent editions, cut out words to do with nature, like "willow," "acorn," "conker" and so on and replaced them with words like "broadband" and "mp3 player."
Some really distinguished famous writers – Margaret Atwood, Michael Morpurgo and others – wrote an open letter to Oxford University Press saying that your job as a cultural bastion is to make sure that these words about the countryside remain, so that we can educate our children about the importance of nature. OUP quite rightly and robustly responded that "Our job is not to prescribe, we just reflect language usage."
Importance of OED (Charlotte Brewer, Oxford Univ.)
Do you think that the very act of creating an authoritative record of the English language standardised it?
That’s been a long debate amongst linguists—about how a standard language emerges, and what part wordbooks play in it. There is an argument that once you start writing language down, "codifying" it, the very act of reproducing the evidence formally in a substantial printed volume, with serried ranks of word lists, definitions, quotations and scholarly apparatus, transmutes the thing into a prescriptive authority whether you like it or not. It's a very unusual dictionary user who understands that dictionaries are describing, not prescribing. And to some extent it's impossible to have an objective record of language.
I've just published an article on Jane Austen's language and vocabulary as recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary. She's quoted for all sorts of words to do with domestic matters, sewing and so on. She's hardly ever quoted for moral words or words to do with principles and evaluative judgement–even though she's probably more famous for that! That tells you something about gender and the OED . . .
Why Oxford dictionaries are right to purge nature from the dictionary
By Martin Robbins, The Guardian, Tue 3 Mar 2015
Attacking a dictionary for removing archaic words is like punching your thermometer when it's too cold.
if the pen is mightier than the sword, then words are probably more lethal than bullets, and that makes Oxford Dictionaries the most powerful military force in the world.
This metaphor helps explain . . . why a group of authors are so concerned that a variety of words relating to nature were culled from the Oxford Junior Dictionary.
The purge actually happened in 2007, but in January this year a number of the Anglophile's literary giants, including Andrew Motion and Margaret Atwood, joined a campaign by some 28 writers to get the Oxford University Press to reconsider their position, protesting at the loss of healthy outdoor words in favor of language that is, “associated with the increasingly interior, solitary childhoods of today.”
Why Oxford Dictionaries are right to purge nature from the dictionary
By Martin Robbins, The Guardian, Tue 3 Mar 2015
“The deletions,” according to Robert Macfarlane . . . “included acorn, adder, ash, beech, bluebell, buttercup, catkin, conker, cowslip, cygnet, dandelion, fern, hazel, heather, heron, ivy, kingfisher, lark, mistletoe, nectar, newt, otter, pasture and willow.
The words taking their places in the new edition included attachment, block-graph, blog, broadband, bullet-point, celebrity, chatroom, committee, cut-and-paste, MP3 player and voice-mail.”
I'm sympathetic to the campaign. They're right to be concerned about a generation of indoor kids raised by cowardly parents, and the impact that may have on health, obesity, or even just the appreciation of nature and our place in it. it's a tragedy that kids don't get out more, and any effort to reverse the trend should be applauded.
But Oxford Dictionaries are absolutely correct in what they're doing, and the people moaning at them have got the whole situation completely backwards.
Why Oxford Dictionaries are right to purge nature from the dictionary
Martin Robbins, The Guardian, Tue 3 Mar 2015
Firstly, the job of a dictionary is to document words and usage, not dictate them. The Oxford English Dictionary is a historical record, analyzing contemporary writing and parsing the results according to strict guidelines to provide its users with an accurate depiction of how language is used.
In the case of the Junior Dictionary, that work is carried out using a 100 million word corpus of children's literature and writing. The editors aren't just taking an adult dictionary and chucking out words; they're performing a detailed and sophisticated analysis of the English language and recording the results as faithfully as possible.
Is the system perfectly accurate and free of bias or editorial influence? Well no, nothing human ever is; but it's a damned sight better than letting campaign groups get involved.
Why Oxford Dictionaries are right to purge nature from the dictionary
Martin Robbins, The Guardian, Tue 3 Mar 2015
And I have to say, I'm a little bit queasy at the idea that somehow natural words are morally superior to technological ones. Maybe "chatroom," "blog," and "cut-and-paste" lack the poetic qualities of cowslips and otters, but they’re far more valuable to most people’s lives, and there’s nothing intrinsically "wrong" about that fact.
Links
OED online dictionary
Link to help videos on using the OED; also provides links to print PDF files
Understanding entries
Podcast—Charlotte Brewer
Bondmaid
"Bondmaid" is not the kind of word people drop during conversation anymore, and that’s for the best: It means “a slave girl.” The word was most popular in the 16th century. Murray’s file for "bondmaid", however, reached back even further: It included quotations as old as William Tyndale’s 1526 translation of the Bible.
But then "bondmaid" went missing. “Its slips had fallen down behind some books, and the editors had never noticed that it was gone,” writes Simon Winchester in The Meaning of Everything. When the first volume of the Oxford English Dictionary was published in 1888, "bondmaid" wasn’t there. (That volume of the OED does miss other words, but those exclusions were deliberate matters of editorial policy—"bondmaid" is the only word that the editors are known to have physically lost.)
Bondmaid
When the slips were later rediscovered in the Scriptorium, Murray reportedly turned red with embarrassment. By 1901, some 14 years after the exclusion, he was still reeling over the mistake in a draft of a letter addressed to an anonymous contributor: “[N]ot one of the 30 people (at least) who saw the work at various stages between MS. and electrotyped pages noticed the omission. The phenomenon is absolutely inexplicable, and with our minute organization one would have said absolutely impossible; I hope also absolutely unparalleled.”
All was not lost for the lost word, however. In 1933, "bondmaid" made its Oxford dictionary debut. It had taken nearly five decades to make the correction.
Next Week
The Dictionary of Lost Words