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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS