Letter: Johnson's view of 'fixing' language
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Robert Allen, editor of the new Chambers Dictionary, is unfair in his vilification of Dr Johnson ('Gobsmacked by shrimping dweebs', 10 September). The idea that Johnson intended to 'fix' the language in his dictionary is almost as specious as the belief that his definition of the lexicographer as a 'harmless drudge' was delivered without a heavy larding of irony.
There were those who did yearn for a truly 'standard' English, notably Dryden, Pope and Addison, a literary establishment that slightly preceded Johnson's own celebrity, but their emotions were as much nationalistic as linguistic. The French Academie had delivered its own dictionary in 1694 and then, as now, the work indeed aimed at 'fixing' French. To London's literati, such efficiency was deemed a threat from the nation's foe: it must be countered.
But Johnson's preface puts his own position. He had, he admits, 'flattered' himself for a while that such fixing was possible, but had, in compiling his great work, begun to 'fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify'. One cannot, he concludes, 'embalm' a language, and the lexicographer who makes such claims should be derided as soundly as the quack doctor purveying his nostrums for eternal youth.
Yours sincerely,
JONATHON GREEN
London, N7
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments