I've wanted to be a lexicographer since I was eight. A lexicographer, as those of you who read this space regularly well know, is someone who writes or edits dictionaries. The word "lexicographer" is one you'll find in even the smallest dictionaries -- call it a point of professional privilege.
I read an article in a newspaper about the late Robert Burchfield and the making of the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, and after that, you might say, my path was defined.
When I'm asked how I became a lexicographer and give the since-I-was-eight answer, the hopefuls look a little less hopeful. For one thing, everyone who has ever asked me how to become one has been a great deal older than eight, making the questioner feel immediately as if he or she is already starting too late. (One little girl who attended a talk I gave in New Orleans did show an initial interest, but after some consideration decided that she would rather be "a real writer").
Although it's a job that has an impressive name, several professional organizations (the Dictionary Society of North America and Euralex being the largest) and even a best seller associated with it, The Professor and the Madman by Simon Winchester, there's not a well-marked route to actually becoming a lexicographer. The hopefuls want to be told that there's a certification process, a test to take -- your alphabetization comps, perhaps -- a degree to earn or at least a trade union to join.
Some disadvantages
Sadly, there is no central credentialing body, at least not in the US. (There are a few schools in Europe that offer certificates or MA/MS degrees in lexicography; the programs at the University of Birmingham and the University of Brighton are the best known. There is also the Lexicography Master Class, which offers training courses to companies and individuals and is run by the noted lexicographers Sue Atkins, Michael Rundll and Adam Kilgarriff). There have been classes in lexicography in the US, but no degree-granting programs.
The hopefuls always ask the same questions: Should I major in English or linguistics? Should I get my doctorate? Should I freelance, or should I try for a full-time staff position? My answer, too, is always the same: It depends.
Dictionary making, as a career, has several striking disadvantages. There are fewer than a dozen major employers in the US; they are clustered in the Northeast and tend to hire on a cyclical basis as projects wax and wane. Each dictionary has its own defining style, meaning that there's considerable relearning to do if you change employers. The number of full-time working English-language lexicographers in the US, including freelancers, is probably well below 200; adding those working on scholarly and academic dictionaries might double that number, but not much more.
I polled, in a highly unscientific manner, my colleagues in the Dictionary Society of North America, and I found that lexicographers in the US do have a common qualification for the jobs they hold or have held: They have all been lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.
How to land a job
Several lexicographers, including Wendalyn Nichols and Enid Pearsons (both formerly of Random House), Orin Hargraves (a freelance lexicographer who has worked for Oxford and other houses) and Debbie Sawczak (formerly of the Canadian Gage dictionaries) answered newspaper ads that in essence said, "Lexicographers Wanted: Will Train." Joanne Despres (senior editor at Merriam-Webster), Ed Gates (who also worked at Merriam on the Third International), Daniel Barron (late of Longman) and Peter Gilliver (of the OED) also responded to job postings, some literally put up on bulletin boards. The late, much-missed Rima McKinzey (a freelance "pronster," also known as a pronunciation editor, or orthoepist) was recommended for a job at Random House by one of her professors, Arthur Bronstein; Steve Kleinedler (senior editor at American Heritage) took a class from Richard Spears (a slang lexicographer) at Northwestern University, which led to freelance work. Robert Parks (of Wordsmyth) taught a Politics and Language class and was called in as a consultant for a company making electronic dictionaries in Japan while there on a Fulbright; Robert Wachal (who has edited a dictionary of abbreviations and acronyms for American Heritage) taught linguistics and was "scouted" by a publisher while giving a paper at a Dictionary Society meeting. Grant Barrett, a journalist, volunteered to be the Web master for the American Dialect Society, which led indirectly to his becoming the project editor for the Historical Dictionary of American Slang.
What on their resumes got these lexicographers their jobs? As you might expect, the majority have degrees in English, linguistics or foreign languages. But at least one, Peter Gilliver, has a degree in math, and several more have journalism backgrounds. Another commonality among working lexicographers is that each says his or her course of study was the ideal one to prepare for the job, which is not as parochial as it may sound: Dictionaries cover so much, so broadly, that you can find a way to apply pretty much any kind of expertise you might have.
Helpful hints
If you really think that lexicography is for you and are undaunted by the odds, there are some ways to help your luck along. A quick trip to the bookstore or the library will provide you with the names and addresses of all the major publishers, or better yet, you can check job listings on their Web sites. You can join the Dictionary Society, sign up for its e-mail list (where jobs are occasionally posted) and attend its small and collegial meetings, which are held every other year. (The next one will be in Boston in 2005). While you wait for lightning to strike, familiarize yourself with all the major American dictionaries -- Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Webster's New World and the New Oxford American Dictionary -- not just whichever one happens to be your favorite.
However accidental the beginning of their careers as lexicographers, once well dug in, most never want to do anything else. They find, as Thomas Paikeday (editor of The User's Webster dictionary) put it, that "lexicography suits my scholarship, skills and even my temperament." In the dozen years that I have been working on dictionaries, the suspicions of my 8-year-old self have only been confirmed: It's the best job in the world, and well worth trying for.
Erin McKean is the editor in chief, US dictionaries, for Oxford University Press, and the editor of Verbatim: The Language Quarterly.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS