MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385991371 · doi:10.1353/dic.2023.a904546

The Whole World in a Book: Dictionaries in the Nineteenth Century ed. by Sarah Ogilvie and Gabriella Safran (review)

2023· article· en· W4385991371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Hancher

Bibliographic record

VenueDictionaries · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexisHistoryLexicographyClassicsArt historyLiteratureArtLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Whole World in a Book: Dictionaries in the Nineteenth Century ed. by Sarah Ogilvie and Gabriella Safran Michael Hancher (bio) The Whole World in a Book: Dictionaries in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Sarah Ogilvie and Gabriella Safran. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp. xxiii + 328. Hardcover $48.99. ISBN: 978-019-0913-19-9. This collection of twenty-six chapters originated in a two-day workshop titled "Nineteenth-Century Lexicography Conference: Between Science and Fiction," which the editors hosted at Stanford University in April 2018. The twenty-eight contributors, leading scholars of linguistic and lexicographical history, often refer to the relevance of each other's work. Such attentive cross-referencing, combined with the broadly chronological sequencing of the chapters and a brief but helpful editorial introduction, gives the book a continuity that is unusual in such collections. The book is bracketed by a retrospective chapter by John Considine, which efficiently identifies a set of precedents and unresolved questions that faced lexicographers at the end of the eighteenth century, and a final, prospective chapter by Jorge Bidarra and Tania Aparecida Martins, which looks toward a new lexicography for sign language in Brazil to resolve questions that date back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The intervening chapters assess the motives, circumstances, and accomplishments of dictionary-makers in the nineteenth century as they worked to describe the lexis of a broad range of Western and Asian modern languages. A leitmotif in the book is linguistic evolution, which the authors invoke some two dozen times, not always with reference to James A. H. Murray's Romanes Lecture The Evolution of English Lexicography (1900). [End Page 149] NATION One of the questions framed in the call for papers was, "What role, if any, did nationalistic enterprises play in the planning and execution of these texts?" (Ogilvie and Safran 2016). Many of these chapters highlight that role. "Christian Nationalism in Noah Webster's Lexicography" is the title of Edward Finegan's contribution, which characterizes the nationalism signaled by the first epithet in the title of Webster's major work, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). Volker Harm's chapter on the Deutsches Wörterbuch, begun by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm early in the nineteenth century though not completed until 1961, makes clear that "the Grimms explicitly identified language and nation"—characterized as "the folk"—decades before the consolidation of the German nation-state (78). Harm points out that Anne Dykstra's chapter, "Joost Halbertsma and the Lexicon Frisicum," registers similar pressures in Dutch and Frisian lexicography, attenuated in the latter case by Halbertsma's resort to a Latin meta-language for his dictionary (94, 97). "The First Scottish 'National' Dictionary: John Jamieson's Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language (1808/1825)," by Susan Rennie, and "French Lexicography in Québec: The Works and Ideas of Oscar Dunn," by Wim Remysen and Nadine Vincent, are also germane: Walter Scott understood Jamieson's project to be "an important national task" (114), and Dunn advocated for "a French nation in America" (145). In all three of these latter cases—Frisian, Scots, Québécois—the independent status of the language as a language rather than a dialect is disputable (thanks in part to the uncertainty of the general distinction between language and dialect), even as the independence of the polities involved—Frisia, Scotland, Québec—has been less than assured. And even where independence had been secured, as in the United States, Webster's American Dictionary described not the American language but a dialect of the English language. The taxonomic question of where to draw the line, and at what level, inflects nineteenth-century lexicography in this respect and in others that will be noted below. Other chapters that engage the relation of language and nation include "Lord of the Words: Vladimir Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great-Russian Language as a National Epic" by Ilya Vinitsky, "Lexicography of the Entrenched Empire: Banihûn's and Pu-gong's Manchu-Chinese Literary Ocean (1821)" by Mårtin Söderblom Saarela, [End Page 150] "Steingass's Comprehensive Persian–English Dictionary and the Rise and Fall of Persian as a Transregional...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDictionariesSame topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207