Search
for meanings
>>
Jesse
Sheidlower, AB'89, collects words and their usages for
the next incarnation of the Oxford
English Dictionary.
Asking
Jesse Sheidlower if he has a favorite word is like asking a Supreme
Court justice if he has a favorite law, or a mother if she has
a favorite child. "No," says Sheidlower without hesitation.
"Everyone in the language business hates that question. Words
in general are interesting.I don't play favorites."
Such
objectivity is an asset for a man in his position. At 32, Sheidlower,
AB'89, has recently become the Oxford English Dictionary's
first North American editor. He joins a staff of five other principal
editors and several dozen lexicographers, philologists, and etymologists
who are compiling the first major rewrite of the 20-volume work
that has been called "the greatest effort since the invention
of printing."
If
there are such things as celebrities in the intimate world of
dictionary makers (according to lexicographer Orin Hargraves,
AB'77, the same 100 or so people seem to write all commercial
dictionaries, traveling from one project to another), Sheidlower
fits the bill more than most. During his eight years at Random
House before joining the OED in 1999, he made a name for himself
as the project editor for the Random House Historical Dictionary
of American Slang and originated the "Word of the Day"
feature on its Web site. But what really raised eyebrows at the
Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and New
York magazine-the latter listing him among Gotham's 100 smartest
people-was his 1995 cause célèbre The F-Word,
an exhaustive, 240-page reference work on the ultimate four-letter
word.
"It's
obviously a word of great interest," says Sheidlower. "The
fact that you can produce an entire book about one word shows
that it must be pretty important. I think it was a book that deserved
to be out there." His enthusiasm for the book, however, is
accompanied by a justifiably defensive attitude about the sensationalism
surrounding its press. "I've been asked a lot about 'dirty
words,'" he says. "I didn't write a book about the F-word
because I think dirty words are neat. If you look at it, it's
a very detailed, scholarly treatment of the history of a word
that goes back over five centuries." A puzzled look crosses
his face, as if he is unable to comprehend how an audience could
mistake professional interests for personal nature. "After
editing the book, I knew things that I hadn't known before, but
the fact that I work on slang doesn't mean I'm going to start
using a lot of slang. I'm a professional, more or less an academic
sort of guy, and I speak that way."
It's
early December in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, a colonial community
at the intersection of the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound,
30 miles east of New Haven. Trains deposit visitors from Boston
or New York four times a day at the one-room station, where the
most prominent display is a flyer for the local Lyme disease support
group. Sheidlower-who, with his wife, Elizabeth, and 14-month-old
daughter, Maisie, calls the town home for now-drives from the
station along the main road, pointing at houses and calling out
dates: "1836
1785
1799
." One of the
few modern structures visible is the bland rectangle of a building
where his office suite sits on the second floor, above a hearing-aid
dealership and a dentist's office. "Sometimes I can hear
the dentist's drill while I'm working," he says.
Stepping
into Sheidlower's office, one might think he grows books for a
living, as naturally as a farmer grows tomatoes or grapes. There
is a desk, a door, a window, and books. There are books stacked
in neat piles on the floor, in crooked piles on the desk, in short
piles on the edges of the bookshelf in front of other books. Books
with bookmarks, books in neat brown packages tied with taut twine.
Books with frayed covers and well-worn edges, unread books with
fresh price tags and spines begging to be snapped. Books with
instantly recognizable authors and titles-Doctorow's City of
God, Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes, Kerouac's
Selected Letters. Imposing tomes by masters-The Complete
Lyrics of Ira Gershwin, three stern volumes of H. L. Mencken's
The American Language, an entire stack of William Safire.
Scripts of Shakespeare in Love, The Truman Show,
The Sixth Sense, and every episode of The Sopranos.
Rows and rows of subculture literature, ranging from Prince
Edward Island Sayings to Life in Sing Sing to Surfin'Ary-A
Dictionary of Surfing Terms and Surfspeak (a surprisingly
large book). Empty Strand bags litter the office like abandoned
socks, balled up and lying among 18th-century leather-bounds,
19th-century cloth-bounds, and 20th-century hardcovers with slick
jackets. To call Jesse Sheidlower a literate man is like saying
Albert Schweitzer was a nice guy or Bill Gates makes a comfortable
living.
The
only other noticeable feature is the trio of computer monitors
on Sheidlower's desk, one of which displays two clocks side by
side, the first set for the East Coast, the second for London
time.
Sheidlower
has no staff, and other than his office there is only a windowless
anteroom that houses the computer server, miscellaneous research
materials, and-no surprise-more books. He works alone, his spaniel
Phoebe keeping him company in the office when he's not visiting
the local library for research. "In England, principal editors
are for the most part not doing their own work from scratch,"
he says with a hint of jealousy. "They have people under
them who are doing the background research and drafting the entries
and so forth, so they will edit things that have already been
done, but they will not do the very time-consuming introductory
stuff. And when I have a staff, that's what I will be doing as
well; someone else will be doing the work, and I will guide them
as necessary depending on their background."
For
now, however, he is a jack-of-all-labors, directing volunteers
who scour American literature in search of unusual words, processing
entries from these readers, defining North American usages of
new words, and reviewing existing entries to ensure that 20th-century
American usages are included. In just a few months, he will relocate
the OED's North American office to Manhattan and begin
hiring staff members. Within three years, Sheidlower hopes to
have an assistant and three or more editors to help shoulder the
work. "Some will be experienced editors," he says, "some
will be junior editors or novice lexicographers, graduate students
in linguistics without dictionary experience who will be appropriate
for the job. And of course we'll be looking for people with strong
language backgrounds interested in the history of American English."
Why
the sudden attention to the colloquialisms of North America from
a work that bears a reputation for Victorian correctness? And
why did the venerable OED hire an editor who made his name
as an authority on slang? "That image of the OED is
wrong," says Sheidlower, leaning back in his office chair,
his fingers curling and uncurling a worn red dog leash. "The
OED is not strictly concerned with literary correctness.
It's not concerned with enforcing some perceived idea of propriety.
The idea is to record the language, and right now we are making
a big effort to look at things like slang and informal language
that had been, if not ignored, then certainly not treated as thoroughly
as they could have been in the past. Someone with my background
is exactly what they were looking for."
A
Long Island native, he grew up around the sciences, his parents
manufacturing science and nature toys while his grandfather maintained
the largest butterfly collection in the world. Originally a physics
major, Sheidlower quickly switched to classics when he found himself
interested in philology. "I ended up switching to English
at the very end because I thought I was going to have trouble
passing my Greek finals," he says with a grin. After Chicago,
he studied for a year at Cambridge University's Department of
Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic before beginning his career as
a lexicographer.
The
Oxford English Dictionary-originally called the New
English Dictionary-was intended to be an inventory of the
English language, including not only every word, but definitions
and literary references for every sense in which every word has
been recorded in print since 1150. When the Philological Society
of London first proposed the undertaking in 1857, it projected
the work would include four volumes and take ten years to complete.
By the time the project was finished in 1928, it had taken 70
years to publish the ten massive volumes that contained the meaning,
history, and pronunciation of nearly half a million words. The
definitions are supported by almost two million references from
4,500 works of literature ranging from the Bible to anonymous
nursery rhymes.
Of
course the real beauty of a language, what gives it life, is that
it is constantly evolving, thus, no dictionary is ever really
complete. In 1933, just five years after the monumental work appeared,
a single-volume supplement to the OED was published along
with a reissue of the original work in 12 volumes with its new
title, the Oxford English Dictionary, a change brought
about by a more substantial agreement between the Philological
Society and Oxford. Decades later, a four-volume supplement followed,
published one book at a time between 1972 and 1986. In 1989, the
original OED and its supplements, as well as several thousand
new words, were combined into the OED's second edition,
released in 20 volumes containing more than 60 million words.
The third edition is expected to be released in 2010 and will
be available in its entirety online, making the OED available
to a worldwide audience. Perhaps more significantly, for the first
time editors will not have to wait decades to make changes or
additions. The third edition will, in a sense, be a final edition
that will change at the same speed as the language.
The
project also marks the first time that the work of the other original
editors will be rewritten. "We're updating the whole thing,"
says Sheidlower. "None of it will have a Victorian feel.
It's a dictionary for our times."
"Our
times" is a tricky term. Pop culture fiends may be surprised
to learn just how far back some recently popularized terms go.
"For example," says Sheidlower, "over the last
few years there's been some attention paid to the expression yadda
yadda yadda because of Seinfeld. I was at Random House
when that Seinfeld episode came out, and we had in fact
been tracking the term several years before that. It was not coined
by Seinfeld by any strength of the imagination. In fact,
we have examples of yadda yadda yadda going back to 1945,
very clearly used in the exact same way-although sometimes with
different spellings such as yadada instead of yadda-in
the same context, or varying contexts including used as an interjection
to indicate that further material is obvious from what has gone
before, and also as a verb: 'All this yadading yadading from the
back seat.' So that's one example of an exciting recent word that
actually has much earlier roots than most people realize.
"Another
example is the use of not in Wayne's World, such
as 'Madonna's my girlfriend. NOT!' This became enormously popular
after the movie came out in 1992. In fact, that use of not
dates back to the 1880s and is grounded in the writings of some
very important American authors including Theodore Dreiser and
F. Scott Fitzgerald. We have examples from every decade since
the 1880s using the term the same way-there's either a dash or
an ellipses followed by not with capital letters or an
exclamation point or something like that. The word was unquestionably
popularized by the movie, but just as unquestionably, because
you have extensive documentary evidence for it, is not a new term
at all.
"An
example of something that is not that old, and the antedating
isn't that big but is just as important, is the term virtual
reality. For uses referring to computer-generated worlds,
the term is almost always said to be coined by Jaron Lanier in
1987, and it became popular after that. I recently came across
an example of virtual reality in what is pretty much the
same sense, from 1979, in an internal IBM document. It's only
eight years, but it's an important eight years, because this is
a computer term, which for the most part you don't expect to be
able to push back as far."
Antedating a term-finding an earlier specific usage than was previously
thought to exist-is an important function of the lexicographer,
whose ultimate goal is to trace each term back to the point it
was originally introduced to the language. While historical dictionaries
do not concern themselves with the rules of correct English
ladled out to college freshmen-do not use less than with
countables, avoid using literally when you mean figuratively,
never use a modifier with an absolute, etc., etc.-Sheidlower does
see the OED as a valuable resource for stylists who want
to know how a word's use has changed through the years.
"We
don't want to be the authority," says Sheidlower. "We're
not telling people what to do; we're giving them more information
than they get anywhere else without doing a vast amount of work
on their own. We're not in the business of saying to avoid or
favor certain words because William Safire says so or so on. If
someone comes to the OED upset about the use of a word,
they may not walk away any less upset, but they'll at least know
a little bit more about its history in the language and how it's
been used.
"For
instance, people complain about the use of unique with
any kind of adverbial modifier: 'most unique,' 'very unique,'
whatever. In fact, the history of unique shows that it
was an exceptionally rare word at one time, and then around the
1860s or 1870s, pretty much all at once a number of senses sprung
up, one of those senses being the sole example of something that
you can't modify. But other examples meant unusual or esoteric;
you certainly could say 'very unique,' and the OED will tell you
that. It will also give other examples of words that are usually
considered unmodifiable like perfect, where one of the
reasons this country was founded was 'to form a more perfect union.'
So while I am not going to say people shouldn't be upset by 'more
unique' or 'most unique,' nonetheless, one would like them to
be so with the understanding of how unique has been used
throughout its entire history, to know that objecting to 'more'
or 'most unique' is almost entirely arbitrary and has nothing
to do with the history of it or any related word."
Despite
Sheidlower's democratic view of language usage, one can't help
but feel intimidated when talking with him, careful not to use
less than with countables, literally for figuratively,
or a modifier with an absolute. A thin man with perfectly combed
hair, he is impeccably dressed in suspenders and a tie even though
he works alone. Judging from physical appearance only, one would
never guess that he rowed crew as an undergraduate, or that he
is a bold conversationalist, unafraid to challenge one's usage
of a specific word-not for literary correctness, but to ensure
that the speaker is communicating exactly what he intends.
Words
are, after all, symbols for thoughts, and Sheidlower believes
the only way to use language incorrectly is to use it ineffectively.
"Linguistically, a native speaker of English can make no
mistakes that are not obvious slips of the tongue or typos or
whatever," he says. "The sorts of things that are normally
pointed out as grammatical errors usually have little to do with
good writing or accurate writing."
Sheidlower
drives back to the train station along Old Saybrook's Main Street,
the afternoon sun glinting off the windows of the Federals, the
Victorians, and the Georgians that line the blocks like snapshots
on a mantel. At the stoplights, he unconsciously winds and unwinds
a string around his finger while he talks.
Although
he has been working for some time on a new book called The
It-Word-a look at pop culture vocabulary in the 20th century-his
current position unwinding words for the OED has left him
with little free time for outside projects. "I spend all
my time on the OED. At home I'm reading the second volume of Hunter
S. Thompson's collected letters. It's on my table now-that's what
I'm reading in bed. I don't read things for personal pleasure
anymore," he says, somehow managing to be simultaneously
wistful and matter-of-fact. "I am always thinking about the
words when I'm reading. I try to read things that I think will
provide useful lexicographical material. I'm always underlining
words."
Read
more about Chicago
Lexicographers