Miyoshi - Johnson's and Webster's Verbal Examples, 2007

Johnson's and Webster's
Verbal Examples
Kusujiro Miyoshi
Max Niemeyer Verlag

L E X IC O G R A PH IC A
Series Maior
Supplementary Volumes to the International Annual for Lexicography

Suppl!ments " la Revue Internationale de Lexicographie
Supplementb&nde zum Internationalen Jahrbuch f)r Lexikographie
Edited by
Pierre Corbin, Reinhard R. K. Hartmann, Franz Josef Hausmann,
Ulrich Heid, Sven-Gçran Malmgren, Oskar Reichmann
132
Published in cooperation with the Dictionary Society of North America

(DSNA) and the European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX)
Kusujiro Miyoshi
Johnson’s and Webster’s

Verbal Examples
With Special Reference
to Exemplifying Usage in Dictionary Entries
Max Niemeyer Verlag

T)bingen 2007 n
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;

detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet ber http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
ISBN 978-3-484-39132-1 ISSN 0175-9264
) Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tbingen 2007

Ein Imprint der Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG
http://www.niemeyer.de
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschtzt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der
engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzul=ssig und strafbar. Das
gilt insbesondere fr Vervielf=ltigungen, >bersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und
Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany.
Gedruckt auf alterungsbest=ndigem Papier.
Druck: Laupp & Gçbel GmbH, Nehren
Einband: N=dele Verlags- und Industriebuchbinderei, Nehren
Acknowledgements
In publishing my Ph.D. thesis, I want to express my deepest gratitude and most sincere
respect to Professor Dr. Reinhard Hartmann, the late Professor Emeritus Haruo Kozu and
Dr. Daisaku Ikeda.
First and foremost, I appreciate how fortunate I was to do research in lexicography under
the supervision of Professor Hartmann, who is Honorary University Fellow at University of
Exeter and Honorary Professor at University of Birmingham. This thesis could not have
been completed without his continuous encouragement, valuable advice and patience
throughout the years of my graduate studies at University of Exeter. I remember his first
guidance which began with the maxim “Problems are there to be solved”. Actually, I faced
one challenge after another as I proceeded with my research, and on such occasions,
Professor Hartmann consistently helped me overcome the challenges with his academic
insight which often amazed me. In particular, I am especially appreciative of his
encouraging advice which was given to me during our discussion on a snowy evening in
2004. It was when I became worried, wondering if I could finalize my thesis, and with this
advice I regained my energy to carry on my research. The kindness he showed me at that
time will remain in my memory for a long time, with the poetic atmosphere of the place
where we were then, a quiet, dimly-lit restaurant close to Exeter’s famous Cathedral.
The late Professor Kozu, who taught English Philology at Kansai University of Foreign
Studies, first introduced me to research in English and American lexicography; my interest
in Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster was nurtured under his inspirational guidance in the
early 1980’s. His words of academic advice and encouragement, most of which I still
remember, had been invaluable for me to continue my research until I became Professor
Hartmann’s supervisee in 2000. (How I wish Professor Kozu were still with us, and I could
present him with this book!)
Dr. Ikeda is the founder of Soka University and Soka Women's College. The experience
of being a Ph.D. student at University of Exeter, working full-time in Tokyo, was a “once
in a lifetime adventure” to me; I was then Associate Professor at Soka Women’s College. I
feel very happy to have successfully accomplished it. However, I could not have said these
words without Dr. Ikeda’s continuous moral support. In addition, he has been conferred
with honorary doctorates and the title of Professor Emeritus by a total of more than two
hundred universities around the world, including Moscow State University, University of
Glasgow and University of Denver. In this situation, he heartily congratulated me for the
completion of my doctorate with the recognition that it is significant in my life.
Besides Professor Hartmann, Professor Kozu and Dr. Ikeda, I also owe my appreciation
to many other people whose contributions range from technical advice to general support
and encouragement. Dr. Bob Lawson-Peebles at University of Exeter and Dr. Terry Hoad at
Oxford University perused my thesis as its examiners, giving me critical, yet valuable and
constructive advice. Many of my friends, including those I made the acquaintance of in
Exeter, assisted me during the years when I worked on the project. (I also want to thank my
mother, father, wife and two sons for the same reason.) And the publication of this book has
come to be realized with the cooperation of Ms. Margarete Trinks and Ms. Birgitta Zeller at
Max Niemeyer Verlag. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to each of these persons.
Table of Contents
List of Tables....................................................................................................................... XI
Abbreviations and Special Conventions Used in the Thesis............................................. XIII
1: Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Background to the Project................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purposes of the Research ......................................................................................... 2
1.3 The Linguistic Foundation of the Thesis.................................................................. 6
1.4 Johnson’s View of Language and the English Language......................................... 6
1.4.1 Overview of Problems in the Analyses to Date ............................................ 6
1.4.2 Formulation of Johnson’s View of Language............................................... 7
1.4.3 Problems in Investigating Johnson’s Verbal Examples to Date.................. 10
1.4.4 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................... 15
1.5 Webster’s View of Language and the English Language ...................................... 15
1.5.1 His Strong Language Awareness ................................................................ 15
1.5.2 The Formulation of Webster’s View of Language ..................................... 16
1.5.3 Fundamentals of Webster’s View of Language
as Revealed in His Dictionary .................................................................... 20
1.5.4 Webster’s Study of Etymology................................................................... 22
2: Methodology.................................................................................................................. 29
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 29
2.2 Selecting an Appropriate Edition of Johnson’s Dictionary.................................... 29
2.3 Adopting a Sampling Method ................................................................................ 31
2.4 Adopting a Statistical Method in the Analysis of Selected Entries ........................ 32
2.5 Selecting Books on Grammar to Be Based on in the Analysis
of Their Verbal Examples ...................................................................................... 34
2.6 Distinguishing Citations and Invented Examples .................................................. 35
2.7 Finding a Solution to the Problem of Authorship of Some Works ........................ 38
2.8 Selecting an Appropriate Version of the English Bible ......................................... 40
3: The Historical Background of Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries........................... 42

3.1 Johnson’s Dictionary and Two Continental Dictionaries ...................................... 42
3.1.1 Johnson’s Recognition of the Two Dictionaries ......................................... 42
3.1.2 Methods for Comparing the Dictionaries.................................................... 44
3.1.3 Ways of Dividing Entries ........................................................................... 44
3.1.4 Ways of Supplying Verbal Examples ......................................................... 46
3.1.5 Information on Verbal Inflections in the Dictionaries ................................ 47
3.2 Johnson’s Dictionary and Priestley’s Grammars ................................................... 49
3.2.1 Three Perspectives on Johnson’s Treatment of English Grammar ............. 49
3.2.2 Johnson and Two Leading Grammarians in the Eighteenth Century.......... 50
VIII
3.2.3 A Change in Priestley’s Opinion about Johnson’s Dictionary ................... 51

3.2.4 The Influence of Johnson’s Dictionary on Priestley................................... 52
3.3 Webster’s Dictionary and American Education..................................................... 55
3.3.1 The Prevailing Attitudes to the Historical Background
of Webster’s Dictionary.............................................................................. 55
3.3.2 The Historical Facts against the Prevailing Perspective ............................. 56
3.3.3 American Aspects of Webster’s Dictionary ............................................... 57
3.3.4 Dictionaries in Demand among Americans during the Nineteenth Century
.................................................................................................................... 61
3.3.5 The American Educational Situation in Its Early Period ............................ 62
3.3.6 The Continuity of the American Lexicographic Tradition.......................... 64
4: Johnson's and Webster's Usual Practices in Supplying Verbal Examples ..................... 67

4.1 Johnson’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations ................................................ 67
4.1.1 An Apparent Contradiction between Johnson’s Principles and Practice .... 67
4.1.2 Johnson’s Statements on His Selection of Entry-words ............................. 71
4.1.3 A Solution to the Apparent Contradiction .................................................. 72
4.2 Johnson’s Citations as Substitutes for Definitions ................................................. 73
4.2.1 Some Typical Examples ............................................................................. 73
4.2.2 Johnson's Motivation behind Substituting Citations for Definitions .......... 74
4.3 Webster’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations................................................ 76
4.3.1 A Problem of Widely Accepted Opinions .................................................. 76
4.3.2 Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations............................................... 76
4.3.3 Citations from American Authors............................................................... 80
4.4 Webster’s Invented Verbal Examples .................................................................... 81
4.5 Biblical Citations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries .................................. 83
4.5.1 A Problem with the Perspectives to Date.................................................... 83
4.5.2 An Overview of Webster’s Practice of Supplying Biblical Citations ......... 84
4.5.3 Webster’s Exclusion of Johnson’s Biblical Citations ................................. 85
4.5.4 Webster’s Addition of Biblical Citations.................................................... 89
4.5.5 Webster’s Biblical Citations Substituted for Johnson’s.............................. 91
4.5.6 Webster’s Biblical Citations Borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary........... 94
5: Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency and

the Inflected Forms of Such Verbs............................................................................... 101
5.1 Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency ................................... 101
5.1.1 An Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment
of Verbs of High Frequency ..................................................................... 101
5.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources
of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency................................ 104
5.1.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Biblical Citations
in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency .................................................... 107
IX
5.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Citations from Sources

Other than the Bible in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency ................... 114
5.1.5 Generalization of the Analysis.................................................................. 119
5.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on the Inflected Forms
of Verbs of High Frequency................................................................................. 120
5.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment
of the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency ................................. 120
5.2.2 Examples for Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment
of the Inflected Forms of Verbs ................................................................ 122
6: Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions and Prepositional Adverbs..................... 127

6.1 Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions ........................................................ 127
6.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Prepositions ........... 127
6.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations
in Entries on Prepositions ......................................................................... 133
6.1.3 Johnson’s Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions ................... 136
6.1.4 Webster’s Biblical Citations in Entries on Prepositions ........................... 141
6.1.5 Other Characteristics of Webster’s Use of Verbal Examples
in Entries on Prepositions in His Dictionary ............................................ 143
6.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ........................................ 147
6.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment
of Prepositional Adverbs .......................................................................... 147
in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ......................................................... 147
6.2.3 Johnson’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ............ 148
6.2.4 Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs ............ 151
7: Verbal Examples for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations........ 157

7.1 The Purpose of This Chapter................................................................................ 157
7.2 Survey of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Collocations..................... 158
7.3 Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Agreement ....... 160
7.4 Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Disagreement... 163
7.5 Webster’s Interest in Indicating the Collocations ................................................ 168
7.6 Generalization of the Analysis ............................................................................. 170
8: Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment

of Modal Auxiliaries and Primary Verbs ..................................................................... 171
8.1 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries.................... 171
8.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries .. 171
8.1.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries
on the Modal Auxiliaries Shall and Will................................................... 174
on the Modal Auxiliaries Should and Would ............................................ 178
X

on the Modal Auxiliaries May, Can, Might and Could............................. 183
on the Modal Auxiliary Must.................................................................... 186
8.2 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Primary Verbs.......................... 188
8.2.1 The Characteristics of Primary Verbs
and the Procedure of the Analysis ............................................................ 188
8.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples
in Entries on Primary Verbs...................................................................... 189
8.2.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries
on the Inflected Forms of Primary Verbs.................................................. 192
9: Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 197

9.1 Outline ................................................................................................................. 197
9.2 Reflections on the Process of the Analyses.......................................................... 197
9.2.1 Discoveries in the Preliminary Survey...................................................... 197
9.2.2 Reflections on the Main Types of Analysis .............................................. 199
9.2.3 Facts and Questions about Johnson’s Practice
in Supplying Verbal Examples ................................................................. 199
9.2.4 Facts and Questions about Webster’s Practice
9.2.5 Ways of Answering the Questions............................................................ 203
9.2.6 Summarizing Johnson’s and Webster’s Practice
9.3 Specific Facts Concerning Webster’s Unique Lexicographic Practices............... 206
9.3.1 Historical Background to Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ............. 206
9.3.2 Webster’s Modifications to the Structure of Entries
in Johnson’s Dictionary ............................................................................ 206
9.3.3 Difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s Views on Usage ............... 208
9.3.4 The Modernity of Webster’s View of Usage ............................................ 209
9.3.5 Webster’s Development of Johnson’s Treatment
of Words and Phrases ............................................................................... 210
9.3.6 Webster’s Use of Johnson’s Citations ...................................................... 211
9.3.7 Webster’s Invented Examples................................................................... 212
9.4 Final Remarks and New Horizons of Research.................................................... 213
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 214

I Cited Dictionaries and Other Sources...................................................................... 214
II Cited Books and Papers........................................................................................... 215
Indices ............................................................................................................................... 220
Index of Personsonal Names........................................................................................ 220
Index of Words ............................................................................................................ 222
List of Tables
Table 1: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L

in Johnson’s Dictionary .................................................................................................. 67
Table 2: Sources of Citations Substituted for Definitions
in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary ....................................... 74
in Webster’s Dictionary .................................................................................................. 77
Table 4: Biblical Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L
in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries........................................................................ 85
Table 5: Biblical Citations from the Original Source
in Entries on Words for the Letter L in Webster's Dictionary ....................................... 89
Table 6: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency
in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ...................................................................... 101
Table 7: Sources of Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency
in Johnson’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 104
in Webster’s Dictionary ................................................................................................ 106
Table 9: Biblical Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency
Table 10: Biblical Citations in Sub-entries on Verbs of High Frequency
Table 11: Entries on the Inflected Forms of Verbs of High Frequency
Table 12: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositions
Table 13: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary.......... 133
Table 14: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary ......... 135
Table 15: Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary ...... 136
Table 16: Invented Examples in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary ........... 146
Table 17: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs
Table 18: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs
Table 19: Verbal Examples Supplied for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition
Collocations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries ................................................. 158
Table 20: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition
and Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s Dictionary ........................................ 159
Table 21: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition
and Verb-preposition Collocations in Webster’s Dictionary ........................................ 160
Table 22: Johnson’s and Webster’s View of Modal Auxiliaries ....................................... 172
Table 23: Citations and Invented Examples in Sub-entries
on Modal Auxiliaries in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries .................................. 173
Table 24: Sources of Johnson’s Citations in Sub-entries on Modal Auxiliaries................ 174
XII
Table 25: Johnson’s Practice in Supplying Citations by Types of Entries ........................ 200
Table 26: Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples by Types of Entries ........... 202
Abbreviations and Special Conventions Used in the Thesis
1. Abbreviations in the Text
AV The Authorized Version of the English Bible

COBUILD Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary
COD The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English
OALD Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
OED The Oxford English Dictionary
v.i. intransitive verb
v.t. transitive verb
2. Johnson’s Abbreviations
adj. adjective
adv. adverb
conj. conjunction
interj. interjection
n.s. substantive noun
part. participle
particip. pass. passive participle
part. preter. preterite participle
prep. preposition
pret. preterite
preter. preterite.
pron. pronoun
v.a. active verb
v. defective defective verb
v.n. neuter verb
3. Webster’s Abbreviations
a. adjective
adv. adverb
Arm. Armoric
con. conjunction
Eng. English
Fr. French
It. Italian
n. noun
Obs. Obsolete
part. perf. perfect participle
pp. preterite participle
ppr. present participle
XIV
prep. preposition
pret. preterite
verb aux. auxiliary verb
v.i. intransitive verb
v.t. transitive verb
n.s as z. (used to label the headword ‘leasing’) not known
4. Other Markings and Conventions
(Johnson 1755: n. pag. [2nd (par. 17) in the “Preface”])

When citing passages from sources in which the number of pages is not indicated, I
adopted this type of form. In this example, ‘n. pag.’ indicates ‘no page number’, ‘2nd’
‘2nd page’, ‘par. 17’ ‘17th paragraph’ and ‘the “Preface”’ ‘the “Preface” to the
Dictionary’.
K.M.
When inserting my comments in passages where original authors used square brackets, I
put this abbreviation which stands for my own name.
J: To BEAR. v.a. 2.
I have used this form in comparing the contents of entries in Johnson’s and Webster’s
dictionaries. In this example, ‘J’ indicates ‘Johnson’s entry’, ‘To BEAR’ the headword,
‘v.a.’ the abbreviation of the part of speech which Johnson used as a grammatical label,
‘2’ the number of relevant sub-entries.
Indication of Personal Names
I have indicated the first names of authorities when they appear for the first time in each
sub-section. As to those of historic grammarians and linguists and those of persons who
are sources of Johnson's and Webster's citations, I indicated them when they appear for
the first time in the text.
Treatment of Clerical Errors in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries
In quoting Johnson's and Webster's statements and verbal examples, I have copied their
clerical errors, including their misspellings, as they are, not using the indication ‘(sic)’.
1: Introduction
1.1 The Background to the Project
In April 1980, when I became a master’s course student majoring in English studies, I
began studying the history of American lexicography on the recommendation of my
supervisor then, namely the late Professor Emeritus Haruo Kozu at Kansai University of
Foreign Studies in Osaka, Japan. This was my first opportunity to investigate Webster’s
Dictionary. I was engaged in the study for two years, and it produced a master’s
dissertation entitled ‘A study of American English dictionaries with special reference to
Noah Webster’ (Miyoshi 1982). In this dissertation, I especially surveyed the historical
background of Webster’s Dictionary. After that, I gradually became interested in Johnson
as a lexicographer whose Dictionary was generally regarded as an indispensable source for
Webster in compiling his Dictionary. And I wrote several articles concerning Johnson’s
Dictionary, such as ‘Priestley no eibunten to Johnson no eigojiten’ (‘Priestley’s Rudiments
and Johnson’s Dictionary’) (1987), ‘Johnson no jiten: yourei no gogakushiteki igi’
(‘Johnson’s Dictionary: The linguistic significance of its citations’) (1989), ‘S. Johnson to
tairiku no gengo academy: hin’yodoshi no koumoku wo chushin ni’ (‘The influence of
continental language academies on S. Johnson: His treatment of verbs of high frequency’)
(1997).
However, my interest in Webster’s Dictionary never waned. Eight years after my
master’s dissertation, I wrote an article dealing with his biblical citations, ‘A linguistic
approach to Webster’s quotations from the Bible’ (1990). As its title shows, I discussed
Webster’s use of biblical citations in relation to his view of the language used in it. By the
time I wrote this article, I had already become dubious of two prevailing perspectives about
Webster. One is that Webster underestimated the value of verbal examples, and the other is
that his Dictionary is essentially encyclopaedic and provides little information on the
language. Besides, it seemed quite strange that the books and articles comparing Johnson’s
and Webster’s dictionaries that I had read had hardly referred to the first edition of
Johnson’s Dictionary, making it difficult to clarify the similarities and differences between
Johnson’s and Webster’s original view of the language as well as their original practices in
supplying verbal examples. Furthermore, it also seemed strange that the bibliographies in
those works rarely listed James Sledd and Gwin Kolb’s Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary: Essays
in the Biography of a Book (1955), De Witt Starnes and Gertrude Noyes’s The English
Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson, 1604-1755 (which was originally published in 1946)
and other critically important reference books in the assessment of Johnson’s Dictionary.
For these reasons, I strongly felt that it was necessary that Webster’s Dictionary should
be collated with the first edition of Johnson’s Dictionary so that their respective views of
the language and practices in supplying verbal examples might be clarified.
However, I had not been able to begin a comparative analysis of Johnson’s and
Webster’s dictionaries from this standpoint until 2000. This is because I was lacking in the
knowledge of the methodology appropriate for this type of analysis; I was aware of the fact
that some brand-new methods were required for the analysis, and I had not been able to
2
formulate them before. Even in my 1990 article, I neither analysed Webster’s biblical
citations according to the types of entries, nor referred to their relations with Johnson’s
counterparts; I was only able to discuss citations supplied in entries on words for the letter
L in Webster’s Dictionary there, although this means that I thought it might be appropriate
to investigate the whole stretch of the L’s if I was to grasp the general compilation process
in the Dictionary.
Actually, the methods required for such a project had hardly been formulated before I
dived into the ‘sea of verbal examples’ in the respective first editions of Johnson’s and
Webster’s dictionaries, except for the assumption that there would be significant
differences in the way the two lexicographers supplied verbal examples according to the
types of entries and sub-entries, if there was a significant relationship between their verbal
examples, their view of the language and the usage of words. Based on this assumption, I
began to check Johnson’s verbal examples that he supplied in his treatment of words for the
letter L, verbs of high frequency, the inflected forms of the verbs, prepositions,
prepositional adverbs, modal auxiliaries, primary verbs and the inflected forms of the verbs;
the reason why I selected these types of words is described in Section 2.4. I began this task
at the University of Exeter in May 2000, under the supervision of Professor Dr. Reinhard
Hartmann. After I finished checking Johnson’s relevant verbal examples, I began the same
type of analysis of Webster’s verbal examples. While engaged on such tasks, I also
examined the analyses of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries that had been made by
various authorities as extensively as possible. It took me approximate half a year to
complete this preliminary survey for the project.
The performance of the survey was painstaking, but highly rewarding, for three reasons.
Firstly, I was gradually able to formulate one of the fundamental methods for the project;
by the time I finished the survey, I had become certain that the statistical tabulation of the
language facts I had collected would ensure the success of the project. Secondly, it became
evident that both Johnson and Webster had usually supplied verbal examples on the basis of
their view of the language and the usage of words, respectively. Thirdly, the survey seemed
to have revealed that a number of prevailing attitudes typical of some of the analyses of
Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries are based on misconceptions, clarifying alternative
facts instead. This strongly suggested to me the significance of my project in the historical
study of English lexicography.
1.2 Purposes of the Research
Citations or invented examples are usually regarded as a critical part of the dictionary.
Sidney Landau has assessed the situation correctly:
Illustrative quotations can convey a great deal of information about collocation, variety of usage
(degree of formality, humorous or sedate context), connotation (effective implications),
grammatical context (if a verb, does it take an indirect object?), and, of course designative
meaning. Short, invented phrases are frequently essential to tell the reader how the definition is
actually used in ordinary contexts. (Landau 1989:166)
3
Few lexicographers would fail to support this statement. However, as far as I can judge,
sufficient attention has not been paid to the point of how the use of verbal examples began
and developed in the history of English lexicography, especially in America. If the often-
quoted saying “only by knowing the history of an issue can we see the way to the future we
want” is applicable to the study of lexicography, it is a fact which should not be overlooked.
The primary purpose of this thesis is to clarify Noah Webster’s use of verbal examples in
his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) in relation to his view of the
language and the historical background in which the Dictionary was compiled. To achieve
this purpose, I will compare the verbal examples with those in Samuel Johnson’s
Dictionary of the English Language (1755). I expect that the analysis to be made in this
way will contribute to clarifying the use of verbal examples in the early history of
American lexicography.
A comparative analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries is nothing new in the
historical study of English lexicography. This substantially began in 1962 with Joseph
Reed’s article, ‘Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson’. Because of the fact that Webster
compiled his Dictionary with reference to Johnson’s, as is generally acknowledged, the
comparative analysis has always been useful in revealing various aspects of Webster as a
lexicographer. However, in the history of more than forty years of the analysis, it seems
that Webster’s practice in supplying verbal examples has hardly been dealt with from a
linguistic viewpoint. Two reasons are conceivable for this. One is that his use of verbal
examples has been obscured by another characteristic feature, the provision of
encyclopaedic information. Actually, it has often been believed that Webster as a
lexicographer was unique in this respect. However, Webster was originally a grammarian
who was deeply interested in the language, and his grammars were widely read throughout
America at his time. Besides, he provided entries on words which have a wide range of
senses and functions, such as verbs of high frequency, function words, auxiliary verbs and
so on in his Dictionary. These facts indicate the probability that the Dictionary is
essentially a dictionary of the language, however abundant it may be in encyclopaedic
information.
The other reason for the fact that Webster's verbal examples have not received sufficient
attention is that in his Dictionary Webster supplied citations far less frequently than
Johnson. Mainly because of this, there is a prevailing belief that Webster did not recognize
the value of citations in the dictionary. Actually, however, there is little evidence which can
deny the probability that Webster supplied only a small number of citations as a result of
his careful selection of phrases and sentences to be quoted. Furthermore, when browsing
through Webster’s Dictionary, we can see that he supplied an abundance of invented
examples in it, indicating that he was fully aware of the importance of verbal examples. In
this situation, there are few reasons for claiming that Webster underestimated the value of
citations. Webster himself may have often criticized an excessive number of citations in the
dictionary. However, as far as I can judge, he acknowledged the need for citations after he
began compiling his Dictionary in 1807.
In addition to the primary purpose I mentioned above, I will also aim to clarify two
points as secondary purposes: the relation between Johnson’s verbal examples and his view
of the language and the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s use of verbal
examples in relation to their respective historical backgrounds. The use of Johnson’s
Dictionary for the purpose of seeking the linguistic significance of Webster’s verbal
4
examples is automatically accompanied by the need to clarify that of Johnson’s. I will also
attach importance to this point, which does not seem to have been analysed sufficiently to
date. With regard to the analysis of the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s use of
verbal examples in relation to their historical context, it may safely be said that any
lexicographer is subject to historical constraints and that he/she often makes a deliberate
effort to compile a dictionary which meets the needs of the time. And the doctrine of
correctness in the use of the language changes in accordance with the time. In this sense,
the dictionary may be called a by-product of a particular period. Then, if I use the first
edition of Johnson’s Dictionary in my analysis, it is expected that the comparison of
Johnson’s and Webster’s linguistic use of verbal examples will reveal part of the difference
between the doctrine of correctness in English usage in mid-eighteenth-century Britain and
that in nineteenth-century America, thus clarifying the language facts which are necessary
to be taken into account in the historical study of English lexicography.
A few essential terms which I use in the course of the text need to be defined here: (1)
linguistic and encyclopaedic; (2) grammar and usage; (3) literary; and (4) prescriptive and
descriptive.
(1) Linguistic and Encyclopaedic

My use of linguistic is largely based on Reinhard Hartmann and Gregory James’s (1998:88)
definition of linguistic information: “information categories presented by the compiler and
consulted by the user of a dictionary, based on language”, including such information types
as etymology, spelling, pronunciation and grammar. That is, I have generally used the word
when referring to diachronic, orthographic, phonological, grammatical, semantic and
pragmatic information in Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, but I have not always used
it in discussing usage labels in Johnson’s Dictionary. This is for the reason that Johnson
seems to have occasionally supplied usage labels based on his literary taste, which are
thought to be of a different kind from language information in its usual sense.
With regard to the term encyclopaedic, again I base myself on the sense of factual
knowledge as defined in Hartmann and James (1998:49): “In contrast with linguistic
information, encyclopedic material is more concerned with the description of objective
realities than the words or phrases that refer to them”. This also tallies with Keith Roe’s
(1977:16) interpretation of non-lexical information, the description of “a wide variety of
historical or utilitarian facts and figures”, and encyclopaedic information, the explanation of
“the object or abstraction for which a word stands”.
(2) Grammar and Usage

In defining grammar, Hartmann and James (1998:64) have stated that “Sometimes the term
‘grammar’ is used to refer to the overall system of a language or language variety,
including phonology and semantics, which the linguist is charged to describe and which
may or may not reflect the native speaker’s intuition”. And, concerning usage, the same
authorities (1998:149) have stated that it is “A collective term for various judgements on
aspects of language”. With reference to these statements, I will generally use the term
grammar when referring to the system of the language and usage for specific aspects such
as words and phrases.
5
(3) Literary
The senses of the term literary vary according to the interpretation of its relevant term
literature. Tom McArthur (1992:620) has claimed that literature has two senses; one is
“Artistic creation through language and its products” and the other is “The texts of a group
or subject”. My use of literary is always related to the first sense of literature indicated here,
and not to the second. Based on this principle, I use literary in the senses which McArthur
(1992:615) indicated: “Of writing and especially literature”, “Well-versed or engaged in
works of literature” and “Having the style of literature, often to the point of affectation or
stiltedness”.
(4) Prescriptive and Descriptive

It will be widely acknowledged among lexicographers that ‘prescriptive lexicography’
means, as Hartmann and James (1998:111) have stated, “An approach to dictionary-making
which is based on normative attitudes as to how a language or language variety should be
used rather than the facts observed about its usage”, and that the ‘descriptive dictionary’, as
the same authorities (1998:37) have stated, implies “An approach to dictionary-making
which is based on the observed facts about a language or language variety rather than
attitudes on how it should be used”. Part of my concepts of prescriptive and descriptive is
covered by these explanations. At the same time, however, I will often use the terms, taking
into account the ‘reason’ and the ‘facts of usage’ which Sterling Leonard has discussed in
relation to the thought of grammarians in the eighteenth century as follows:
In dealing with problems of language, one of two basic and contrary principles is generally
adhered to; in the eighteenth century the two are clearly differentiated. The one assumes the power
of reason to remold language completely, and appeals to various principles of metaphysics or logic,
or even makes pronouncements on mere individual preference posing as authority, in the endeavor
to “correct, improve, and fix” usage. The other, while admitting the usefulness of purism in
recommending what may be regarded as improvements, recognizes language – even cultivated
language – as a vastly complicated and often haphazard growth of habits stubbornly rooted, the
product of great variation in social soil and climate, not more readily changed by fiat into clipped
and formal garden pattern than is any vast area of swamp and jungle and timber-line vegetation.
Adherents of this second principle are primarily interested in studying the facts of usage,
determining as much as possible of their history and causes, and attempting to classify them
according to valid criteria of their social effects in communication. (Leonard 1962:13)
In line with this passage, I will also regard Johnson and Webster as prescriptive when they
are judged to have been based on ‘reason’, and as descriptive when it is thought that they
attached importance to the ‘facts of usage’. This means that however strictly they may have
indicated the usage of words, the two lexicographers will often be regarded as descriptive
when they can be judged to have based themselves on the ‘facts of usage’ of the words; I
will do this in cases where I discuss their views of grammar and usage in relation to the
concepts of ‘reason’ and the ‘facts of usage’.
6
1.3 The Linguistic Foundation of the Thesis
In the following two sections, 1.4 and 1.5, I will make critical observations on Johnson’s
and Webster’s view of language and the English language to date, providing an overview of
the perspectives of Johnson’s verbal examples among authorities; as to Webster’s verbal
examples, they seem to have hardly been analysed until today. The reason for making such
observations is that the primary and secondary purposes of the thesis, which I discussed in
Section 1.2, will be achieved only through the procedure of comparative analysis of the
linguistic significance of their verbal examples, which I will undertake in the main body of
the thesis, Chapters 4 to 8. This being the case, it becomes unavoidable to clarify their basic
views of language and the English language in the first place. My intention is to accomplish
the task by revealing various problems included in the studies by authorities up to now.
This task will naturally lay the foundation for the argument in the main body, clarifying the
necessity of a linguistic approach to Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples.
It may have to be stated here, in passing, that some of the misunderstandings of
Johnson’s and Webster’s views of language among various authorities seem to have
derived from their perspectives of the historical background of the two dictionaries. As to
Webster’s Dictionary, especially, the general approach to ascribing its compilation to his
patriotism is thought to have obscured the linguistic significance of verbal examples in it.
This is a serious problem which concerns the purpose of the thesis and should not be left
neglected. However, I will discuss it in Section 3.3, as part of the chapter entitled “The
Historical Background of Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries”, for contextual reasons.
1.4 Johnson’s View of Language and the English Language
1.4.1 Overview of Problems in the Analyses to Date
Johnson’s view of language had not been formulated when he began to compile his
Dictionary. It was gradually formulated as he went on with the task. This means that when
he finalised his Dictionary, he did not necessarily think of language as he had done before.
This fact has occasionally caused misunderstandings among authorities, often affecting
their assessments of the history of English lexicography. Specifically, because they have a
less than complete understanding of the similarity and difference between the contents of
the “Preface” to Johnson’s Dictionary and that of the Plan of a Dictionary (1747), which
Johnson wrote before compiling the Dictionary, authorities have occasionally failed to
appreciate his changing view of language. For the purpose of eliminating such errors from
the thesis, I need to clarify how Johnson’s view of language developed, since without the
appropriate understanding of Johnson’s view of language, the linguistic significance of his
verbal examples will not be analysed successfully.
Besides, I need to discuss problems involving the study of Johnson’s verbal examples in
his Dictionary to date. Specifically, the verbal examples have mainly been studied from a
literary viewpoint until today. Actually, however, Johnson’s primary concern was
consistently with English grammar throughout the task of compiling the Dictionary. In
spite of this fact, it has been rare for the verbal examples to be studied from a linguistic
7
viewpoint. It will be necessary to reveal such problems if I am to clarify how the thesis will
contribute to the study of Johnson’s verbal examples.
1.4.2 Formulation of Johnson’s View of Language
In 1747, eight years before his Dictionary, Johnson (1747:4) simply stated in the Plan that
“The chief intent of it [the Dictionary] is to preserve the purity and ascertain the meaning of
our English idiom”. That is, when he began compiling his Dictionary, he was confident that
it would guarantee a beneficial effect on the purification of the language. When he finalised
the Dictionary, however, he had to state the following in its “Preface”:
[...] we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice
may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has
preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm
his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary
nature, or clean the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [9th
(par. 84) in the “Preface”])
Clearly, Johnson’s conviction of the possibility of stopping changes in the language was
gradually weakened while he was engaged in the compilation of the Dictionary.
Observing this situation, many authorities have considered that Johnson came to have
the view that it was a vain attempt to stop the change in the language when he finalised his
Dictionary. Some have considered that Johnson recognized the limitation of what
lexicographers can do. Morton Benson (1986:4) has said that “Johnson [...] realized clearly
that all living languages change and that, therefore, dictionaries should never be considered
to be ‘final’ descriptions of a language”. Likewise, Tetsuro Hayashi (1978:100) has said,
“Johnson was fully conscious of the lexicographer’s limitations as a linguistic controller,
who was destined to treat a language that cannot be unchangeable”. This point of view has
also been held by such authorities as James Sledd and Gwin Kolb (1955), Ronald Wells
(1973) and Henri Béjoint (1994). Slightly differently from them, Howard Weinbrot has
regarded Johnson’s change as a reflection of his maturity as a lexicographer. He stated that:
On the Plan’s side, of the ledger, then, we see self-flattery, irrationality, inexperience [...] and
pride. On the Preface’s side, we see proper modesty, experience, freedom, thought, and growth.
(Weinbrot 1972:92)
Weinbrot (1972:93) has also claimed that Johnson “overtly and covertly rejects the Plan,
many of his own earlier notions regarding language” when he published his Dictionary.
In spite of apparent differences in their opinions, the authorities cited above often seem
to have passed over a critically important passage in the “Preface”. Johnson never came to
think it futile to attempt to resist changes in the language. Torn between his zeal for
purifying and fixing the language and the recognition of its impossibility, Johnson stated
the following:
If the changes that we fear be thus irresistible, what remains but to acquiesce with silence, as in the
other insurmountable distresses of humanity? It remains that we retard what we cannot repel, that
8
we palliate what we cannot cure. Life may be lengthened by care, though death cannot be
ultimately defeated: tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration; we have
long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggles for our language. (Johnson 1755: n.
pag. [10th (par. 91) in the “Preface”])
Without recognizing Johnson’s view of language expressed in this passage, the linguistic
significance of his Dictionary would be difficult to assess.
Through the task of compiling the Dictionary, Johnson also formulated a unique
conception of language. That is, he made the following statement about language in the
“Preface”, which is not found in the Plan:
Language is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas: I wish, however,
that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent, like the things
which they denote. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [2nd (par. 17) in the “Preface”])
Here, he discriminated between ideas and words, the constituents of language, wishing that
both would retain their purity as long as possible. As to the ‘words’ referred to in this
passage, Rackstraw Downes (1962:30) has explained that “the mind perceives reality,
retains mental pictures of it, and communicates these pictures by allotting them signs,
which are called words”; judged from the context of the passage, this explanation seems to
be reasonable. About his notion of language, Johnson also stated the following:
As language was at its beginning merely oral, all words of necessary or common use were spoken
before they were written; and while they were unfixed by any visible signs, must have been spoken
with great diversity, as we now observe those who cannot read to catch sounds imperfectly, and
utter them negligently. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [1st (par. 7) in the “Preface”])
In this statement, referring to words, Johnson discriminated between spoken language and
written language. And the statement also indicates that he attached importance to written
language; he seems to have had the recognition that its ideal style would slow the
progression of change in language as a whole. (This point concerns his prescriptivism,
affecting his use of verbal examples, which will be examined in the main body of the
thesis.)
It is now clear that Johnson’s view of language is inextricably related to his recognition
of change in language; in the respective passages above, which concern Johnson’s view of
language, he referred to changes in language. What, then, did he think the causes of
changes were? In other words, against what did Johnson consistently try to fight while
compiling his Dictionary with the provision of an abundance of verbal examples? In order
to seek an answer to this question, I will compare Johnson’s statements in the “Preface” to
his Dictionary with the statements of a lexicographer who published the Gazophylacium
Anglicanum (1689) anonymously. Tetsuro Hayashi (1978:97-98) has claimed that “most of
the outstanding lexicographers before Johnson seem to have been fully conscious of what
they regard as the excellence of the English language, and they were proud of its superiority
to any one of the modern languages in Europe”. This opinion is basically correct, but the
author of the Gazophylacium was an exception. Certainly, he may not have been one of the
‘outstanding lexicographers’; the Gazophylacium has been generally regarded as a crude
imitation of Stephen Skinner’s Etymologicon Linguae Anglicanae (1671), an etymological
9
dictionary written in Latin. Martyn Wakelin (1987:161), for instance, has claimed that “The
author of the Gazophylacium [...] is predominantly interested in etymologies; which are
frequently plundered from Skinner”. However, the author of the Gazophylacium was aware
of and lamented linguistic change more than 60 years before Johnson’s Dictionary,
referring to some probable causes of change. The “Preface” to the Gazophylacium states:
[English] is so strangely corrupted through Time, that when I look’d an hundred, or an hundred
and fifty Years only behind me, I could scarce imagine it ever to have been the Language of my
Ancestors, or even of the Country I was born in, ‘tis so chang’d through Commerce,
Correspondence, Travellers, and such like Accidents. (Anon. 1689: n. pag. [2nd-3rd (par. 5) in the
“Preface”])
This view, the corruption of the language for the reason of ‘commerce and the like’,
corresponds to Johnson’s statement in the “Preface”:
Commerce, however necessary, however lucrative, as it depraves the manners, corrupts the
language; they that have frequent intercourse with strangers, to whom they endeavour to
accommodate themselves, must in time learn a mingled dialect [...]. This will not always be
confined to the exchange, the warehouse, or the port, but will be communicated by degrees to
other ranks of the people, and be at last incorporated with the current speech. (Johnson 1755: n.
Then, the author of the Gazophylacium cited another probable cause of change in the
language. He said (1689: n. pag. [3rd (par. 5) in the “Preface”]), “Much more may you
imagine it to be alter’d [...] by Conquests, Invasions, Transmigrations of Government, &c”.
In this respect, Johnson’s opinion is different from that of the author of the Gazophylacium.
Johnson (1755: n. pag. [9th (par. 86) in the “Preface”]) stated that “Total and sudden
transformations of a language seldom happen; conquests and migrations are now very rare”.
It seems that here lies the difference between Johnson and the lexicographer who compiled
an etymological dictionary, whatever historic events the two lexicographers may have
assumed, citing the terms conquests and migrations, respectively; as to “Transmigrations of
Governments”, the author of the Gazophylacium may have thought of the Glorious
Revolution, an event which happened at his time, although it seems that a serious change in
the language was not caused by the event, as far as I can judge. Instead of citing conquests
and other reasons, Johnson referred to other probable causes of linguistic change, such as
the development of civilization (1755: n. pag. [8th (par. 81) in the “Preface”]), that of
science (1755: n. pag. [9th (par. 82) in the “Preface”]) and a mixture of two languages
(1755: n. pag. [10h (par. 89) in the “Preface”]). However, what worried Johnson most was
the negative impact of translation. It can be said that this was natural for Johnson who
attached importance to written language. He stated the following:
The great pest of speech is frequency of translation. No book was ever turned from one language
into another, without imparting something of its native idiom; this is the most mischievous and
comprehensive innovation; single words may enter by thousands, and the fabrick of the tongue
continue the same, but new phraseology changes much at once; it alters not the single stones of the
building, but the order of the columns. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [10th (par. 90) in the “Preface”])
10
In this passage, Johnson tried to depict how non-native varieties of words corrupt the
language. Furthermore, Johnson emphatically stated that:
If an academy should be established for the cultivation of our stile, [...] let them, instead of
compiling grammars and dictionaries, endeavour, with all their influence, to stop the licence of
translatours [...]. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [10th (par. 90) in the “Preface”])
The ‘academy’ Johnson referred to here would be a nationally authorized institute for the
purification of the language; I will discuss it in detail in Section 3.1. And this passage
illustrates the fact that Johnson was seriously concerned about the adverse effect of
translation. It will be natural to consider that this recognition of Johnson’s influenced his
selection of the sources of his citations; one typical example for this is that he rarely
supplied citations from the English Bible for indicating the usage of the language, which
will be discussed in Sections 5.1.3, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.2.2, and 8.1.1.
1.4.3 Problems in Investigating Johnson’s Verbal Examples to Date
As Johnson was a person of versatile gifts, his verbal examples, especially his citations
which characterize the Dictionary, have been analysed from various points of view. A. D.
Atkinson (1950:338-341) used the citations to study scientific knowledge among the
English-speaking people in the eighteenth century. Certainly, Johnson’s citations provide a
considerable quantity of encyclopaedic information. For instance, in the entry on animal,
Johnson supplied 54 lines of citations from a book of natural history, which detailed
biological classification. William Wimsatt (1959:83), who investigated Johnson’s citations
from various angles, claimed that “Johnson’s Dictionary is an eighteenth-century tabloid
speculum – a Speculum Historiale, Naturale, and Doctrinale”. Edward McAdam and
George Milne were in line with Wimsatt when they claimed the following:
For physics he [Johnson] used Newton, but botany and zoology had not settled down to a logical
nomenclature, and he had to use second-rate authorities. [...] He used what books were available
for agriculture and building. Electricity excited him: he refers to the Transactions of the Royal
Society, and is aware of what Franklin is experimenting on in the colonies. (McAdam and Milne
1963:ix)
Besides, Johnson was a pious Christian and a moralist. This fact can be gathered from his
Rambler (1750-52) and the “Prayers and Meditations” in the Johnsonian Miscellanies
(1897) edited by George Hill. Maurice Quinlan often used Johnson’s citations in the
Dictionary when analysing Johnson’s religious thought in the book Samuel Johnson: A
Layman’s Religion (1964).
Robert DeMaria is probably the authority who has investigated Johnson’s citations most
extensively. In his Johnson’s ‘Dictionary’ and the Language of Learning (1986), DeMaria
discussed Johnson as a moralist, educator and man of encyclopaedic knowledge exclusively
based on citations in the Dictionary. He claimed that:
11
Johnson’s Dictionary is generically related not only to dictionaries but also to a host of
encyclopedic histories, poems, commentaries, educational works, commonplace books, and, of
course, encyclopedias themselves. (DeMaria 1986:4)
DeMaria (1986:ix) even regarded Johnson’s Dictionary as a “disguised encyclopedia”.

Among the authorities on Webster’s Dictionary, it has usually been asserted that Webster
included abundant religious and encyclopaedic information and that Johnson did not
practice this, which will be referred to in Sections 1.5.1, 2.6, 4.3.3, 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.
DeMaria’s investigation, as well as Atkinson’s, Wimsatt’s, McAdam and Milne’s and
Quinlan’s, are more than enough to refute such assertions.
However, have DeMaria and other authorities I cited above captured the essential aspect
of Johnson’s citations? As seen in the previous sub-section, Johnson’s view of language
changed while he was engaged in the compilation process. However, he was always
conscious of regulating the language by means of grammar. Actually, this had consistently
been a chief concern for Johnson throughout the entire compilation process of his
Dictionary. In his Plan, Johnson (1747:30) stated that “I [...] shall therefore endeavour to
support what appears to me most consonant to grammar and reason”. And in the “Preface”
to the Dictionary, he stated the following:
The words [entry-words in the Dictionary], thus selected and disposed, are grammatically
considered: they are referred to the different parts of speech; traced, when they are irregularly
inflected, through their various terminations; and illustrated by observations, not indeed of great or
striking importance, separately considered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, and
hitherto neglected or forgotten by English grammarians. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 42) in
the “Preface”])
More precisely, Johnson frequently referred to various aspects of grammar in the “Preface”:
derivatives (1755: n. pag. [2nd-3rd (par. 19 and 20)]), irregular conjugation of nouns and
verbs (1755: n. pag. [3rd (par. 21)]), orthography (1755: n. pag. [3rd-4th (par. 28)]),
compound words (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 33)]), suffixes (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 34)]),
gerunds (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 35)]), participles (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 36)]), phrasal
verbs (1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 40)]), expletives (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 44)]), verbs of high
frequency (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45)]), and particles (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 46)]). And
the distinctive feature of Johnson’s Dictionary lies in an abundance of verbal examples.
These facts, Johnson’s intense consciousness of grammar and an abundance of verbal
examples in his Dictionary strongly suggest the probability that he essentially supplied
citations to illustrate grammatical rules of the language.
DeMaria has been partly aware of this. Though referring little to the relation between
grammar and usage, and Johnson’s verbal examples, he stated, in passing, the following in
his discussion of the relation between Johnson’s religious thought and some of the verbal
examples:
The central purpose of the Dictionary is philological, and the majority of Johnson’s
bibliographical decisions were, broadly speaking, linguistic; acknowledged masters of English are
heavily quoted [...]. (DeMaria 1986:16)
12
The following is another example:
Although as a book Johnson’s Dictionary is partly an encyclopedia and partly educational text, it
is clearly and primarily a dictionary in the ordinary sense. (DeMaria 1986:20)
This statement was also supported by his discussion.

Some authorities have tried to seek Johnson’s literary thought in the examples. Johnson
was originally a man of letters. Furthermore, he was renowned as the “Great Cham of
literature” in the eighteenth century. For this reason, quite a few authorities have claimed
that the essential quality of Johnson’s verbal examples lies in their literary aspect. Ian Watt
(1962:18) has counted Johnson’s Dictionary as one of his greatest literary achievements.
He formulated such an opinion through his investigation of Johnson’s verbal examples.
And James Murray (1900:42) has claimed that in Johnson’s hands the English dictionary
became a department of literature; this perspective is also based on the investigation of the
verbal examples. Since the verbal examples were supplied by the “Great Cham of
literature”, it is quite natural for the authorities to assume their literary colour. As to how
they are literary, Wimsatt claimed that:
Johnson’s Dictionary [...] is, for one thing, embellished by numerous aphorisms, anecdotes,
thumbnail dramas, biographical glimpses, drawn from Bacon for instance, from Shakespeare, from
Ben Jonson, from Knolles, from Camden, from L’Estrange, from Swift. (Wimsatt 1959:78-79)
Wimsatt has also made the following remarks:
Johnson’s Dictionary is generously planted with miniature expressions of literary theory and
critical judgement – from Sidney’s Defense, from Ben Jonson’s Timber (a work otherwise largely
neglected during the eighteenth century), from Dryden, from Swift, from Addison – the shapers of
the English critical tradition before the time of Johnson himself. (Wimsatt 1959:80)
Wimsatt’s remarks here are likely to be true. However, we should not be intoxicated by the
literary colour of the verbal examples. Johnson did not always supply literarily significant
citations in his Dictionary.
As I mentioned earlier in this sub-section, Watt and Murray recognised Johnson’s
Dictionary as essentially a literary work. It can be said that this interpretation has resulted
from the conception that Johnson always supplied ‘good’ citations from the works of
notable authors. In this regard, Martyn Wakelin (1987:174) has stressed that “With Johnson
we come to the idea of [...] the use of selected ‘good’ authors for illustrative quotations”.
Likewise, Tetsuro Hayashi has claimed:
[...] we are impressed with Johnson’s deliberate attitude towards the selection of the authorities:
[...] words and examples are to be chosen from the best authors [...] and sentences indicating the
immediate use and the characteristics of elegance. It is certain that all these considerations were
instrumental in forming the essence of the most authoritative and prescriptive dictionary of the
English language. (Hayashi 1978:104)
Plainly, such claims go against the facts. Hayashi’s recognition, especially, is based on
Johnson’s description in the Plan; Hayashi considered that Johnson always tried to practice
13
as he preached in the Plan, the document which Johnson had written before the formulation
of his view of language. Allen Read (1986b:38) has collected the voices of the readers of
Johnson’s Dictionary for a period of approximately fifty years after its publication. They
tend to express views such as “Johnson has not used sufficient discrimination in selecting
his authorities” and “Johnson often quotes as authorities Arbuthnot and Thomson, who
were never considered, even by their own countrymen, as standards of purity.” James
Sledd and Gwin Kolb (1955:135) have also claimed that “Johnson included too many
quotations, often from writers of no authority”. The conception of ‘good’ authors may
differ widely in individuals. However, Johnson himself admitted that he occasionally
included citations from non-canonical authors whose works could not be regarded as ‘good’.
He (1755: n. pag. [6th (par. 59) in the “Preface”]) stated that he had included citations from
authors “never mentioned as masters of elegance or models of stile” in his Dictionary. One
reason for this was, as he (1755: n. pag. [6th (par. 59) in the “Preface”]) explained, that
“words must be sought where they are used”; this statement shows part of Johnson’s
descriptivism. Another reason was the following, which reveals his prescriptivism:
The words which our authours have introduced by their knowledge of foreign languages, or
ignorance of their own, by vanity or wantonness, by compliance with fashion, or lust of innovation,
I have registered as they occurred, though commonly only to censure them, and warn others
against the folly of naturalizing useless foreigners to the injury of the natives. (Johnson 1755: n.
A literary approach to Johnson’s verbal examples seems to have been prevailing for a long
time. To be specific, Rackstraw Downes (1962:29-41) has tried to clarify Johnson’s ideal
style of prose and poetry based on his selection of the sources of citations in the Dictionary,
referring to the development of English poetic diction at the same time. Arthur Sherbo
(1956:126), through a comparison of Johnson’s notes provided in his Plays of William
Shakespeare (1765) with his citations from the author in the Dictionary, has claimed that
the Dictionary is “the most complete glossary and concordance to Shakespeare” in the
1760’s.
In opposition to such a climate of literary investigation of Johnson’s verbal examples, a
few authorities have advocated the necessity of a linguistic approach to them. Harold Allen,
aiming to refute Sherbo, has claimed that:
In his comments about certain words in the selected Shakespearean quotations in the Dictionary,
Samuel Johnson provided significant insight into his reaction to Shakespeare himself, not as a
playwright or poet but as a user of the English language. (Allen 1977:1)
What Allen did was to analyse labels which Johnson put to his citations from William
Shakespeare, such as “Analogical”, “Bad”, “Barbarous”, “Burlesque” and “Inelegant”. In
this regard, McAdam and Milne have pointed out the following fact:
Johnson feels that he is not only required to record and to exemplify but to judge. Hundreds of
times he objects to the use of a word, whether by Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Pope, or Addison,
all of whom are the objects of his almost unlimited admiration. (McAdam and Milne 1963:x)
14
Howard Weinbrot (1972), Ronald Wells (1973) and Charlotte Brewer (1999) are in line
with McAdam and Milne. As far as I know, one of the authorities who made the most
significant examination of critical labels which Johnson put to his citations is Donald
Siebert; drawing attention to the high incidence of citations with the labels “cant”,
“ludicrous”, “low”, “bad” and “low bad”, Siebert (1986:489) claimed that “if we venture
into the world of eighteenth-century colloquialism and slang, we shall find Johnson’s
Dictionary a helpful mecum”. However, can Allen’s analysis, as well as Siebert’s, be called
linguistic? Hayashi (1978:102) has pointed out that Johnson’s critical labels are “primarily
based on the subjective evaluation of the qualities of words”, hinting at the probability that
they derive from Johnson’s literary view. In this respect, I agree with Hayashi. More than
anything else, the contents of labels Allen and Siebert have cited have little relevance to
grammar, Johnson’s primary concern.
Daisuke Nagashima has taken a different stand. He (1983:208-210) focused on cases
where Johnson provided grammatical notes with citations. One such case is the following:
J: To DISCOURAGE. v.a. 3.
It is irregularly used by Temple, with to before the following word.
You may keep your beauty and your health, unless you destroy them yourself, or discourage
them to stay with you, by using them ill. Temple’s Miscell.
This example indicates how Johnson supplied citations from a grammatical viewpoint.
However, Nagashima referred to no more than eleven such cases, which is far from
sufficient to draw a meaningful conclusion from. Besides, he investigated verbal examples
in the entries on the words behindhand, discourage, gust, moralize, peculiar, pernicious,
quaint, refund, site, and square, whose relationships with one another are quite vague. To
make matters worse, Nagashima did not explain at all of on what principle he selected such
entries. In this case, his investigation can hardly be regarded as systematic.
In this way, grammatical analyses of Johnson’s verbal examples have been made very
rarely to date. Some authorities have pointed out that Johnson’s Dictionary is essentially a
dictionary of the language and not of literature. In spite of this fact, they have hardly tried
to prove their opinions by analysing the verbal examples which characterize the Dictionary.
David Fleeman, for instance, has stated that:
[...] despite the presence of some marked idiosyncrasies it should not be forgotten that Johnson
was compiling a dictionary of the English language [...]. His purpose was to explain English words
to English readers and to instruct them in their choice and use. (Fleeman 1984:44)
However, Fleeman does not seem to have made an investigation which accords with this
statement. Similarly, Hayashi (1978:95) has said that “As one of the prerequisites of a
grammatical dictionary, Johnson evidently held the idea that a dictionary should give
importance to commonness and generality of words and phrasal expressions”. Saying thus,
Hayashi did not document a single citation in Johnson’s Dictionary. Noel Osselton is
probably one of very few authorities who have successfully examined one linguistic aspect
of Johnson’s verbal examples. In his ‘Phrasal verbs: Dr Johnson’s use of bilingual sources’
(1995:93-103), Osselton systematically analysed Johnson’s selection and use of citations in
the treatment of phrasal verbs. Still, however, Osselton’s analysis touches only on part of
15
Johnson’s descriptivism. Actually, Johnson’s linguistic use of verbal examples has hardly
been analysed to date.
1.4.4 Generalization of the Analysis
Johnson’s view of language had not matured before he began compiling the Dictionary. In
this sense, if we regard the Dictionary as reflecting all his statements in the Plan, we will
not be able to make a correct assessment of this. Torn between the zeal for fixing the
language and the recognition of it being impossible in compiling the Dictionary, Johnson
gradually developed a unique attitude toward the language, which is revealed in his
statement I cited in Section 1.4.2: “Life may be lengthened by care, though death cannot be
ultimately defeated: tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration: we
have long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggles for our language”. This
attitude, resistance against linguistic change coupled with the recognition of it being
ultimately fruitless, cannot be observable in his Plan in which Johnson optimistically stated
“The chief intent of it [the Dictionary] is to preserve the purity and ascertain the meaning of
our English idiom” with the confidence of being able to stabilize the language once and for
all. This change from “immaturity” to “maturity” will be critically important if we want to
grasp the linguistic significance of Johnson’s verbal examples, the vital part of his
Dictionary, correctly.
As to his verbal examples, the fact will also have to be emphasized that Johnson did not
necessarily supply them from a literary viewpoint. Rather, it can safely be said that the
literary aspect of the examples was of secondary importance for Johnson, when we
recognise his enthusiasm for grammar which is expressed in the “Preface” to the Dictionary.
However, very few authorities seem to have analysed the verbal examples with this
intention. I will perform this task in every chapter in the main body of this thesis, which is
necessary to compare Johnson’s and Webster’s practice of supplying verbal examples in the
light of their views of the language.
1.5 Webster’s View of Language and the English Language
1.5.1 His Strong Language Awareness
Concerning Webster’s Dictionary, it is common knowledge that its encyclopaedic aspect

has almost always been emphasized. However, at the end of the “Preface” to his Dictionary,
Webster stated the following:
If the language can be improved in regularity, so as to be more easily acquired by our own citizens,
and by foreigners, and thus be rendered a more useful instrument for the propagation of science,
arts, civilization and Christianity; if it can be rescued from the mischievous influence of sciolists
and that dabbling spirit of innovation which is perpetually disturbing its settled usages and filling
it with anomalies; if, in short, our vernacular language can be redeemed from corruptions, and our
philology and literature from degradation; it would be a source of great satisfaction to me to be one
16
among the instruments of promoting these valuable objects. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [3rd (par. 17)
in the “Preface”])
This passage clearly shows that Webster thought that the provision of linguistic information
was more important than that of encyclopaedic information. And Webster is thought to
have expected that the citizens of his country would prosper based on the standardization of
the language. That is, there is a strong probability that the provision of encyclopaedic
information was only of secondary importance in the Dictionary.
Like Johnson’s, Webster’s view of language had apparently gone through several changes.
Without recognizing this, the linguistic significance of his verbal examples could not be
appreciated adequately. In this section, I will refer to a reason for the changes and discuss
what the changes were like. Then, I will discuss the fundamentals of his view of language
which is revealed in his Dictionary. In addition, I will also investigate Webster’s study of
etymology here; this will be necessary to prove that Webster’s view of language and the
English language is highly scientific, though within his historical limitation, contrary to the
pronouncements of quite a few authorities. As to the historical context of the study of
Webster’s verbal examples, I will not discuss it in this section. The reason for this is that
only a small number of authorities have addressed the verbal examples directly in spite of
the fact that they actually comprise a focal part of his Dictionary. I will discuss the various
approaches and attitudes of the authorities in relevant places in the main body of this thesis,
especially in Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.
1.5.2 The Formulation of Webster’s View of Language
Webster had apparently been torn between descriptivism and prescriptivism for a long time.
He once stated the following in his Dissertations on the English Language (1789):
Comparing the practice of speaking among the yeomanry of this country, with the stile of
Shakespeare and Addison, I am constrained to declare that the people of America, in particular the
English descendants, speak the most pure English now known in the world. (Webster 1789:288)
At the same time, however, he had made the following statement in 1783, as quoted by
Allen Read:
The want of some standard in schools has occasioned a great variety of dialects in Great-Britain
and of course, in America. Every county in England, every state in America and almost every town
in each state, has some peculiarities in pronunciation which are equally erroneous and disagreeable
to its neighbors. (Read 1986a:198)
These two statements have in common that they concern spoken language in America, but
they clearly conflict with each other. The former reveals Webster’s attitude of accepting the
language as it is, and the latter his zeal for standardizing it. Ronald Wells (1973:54), by
recognising Webster’s descriptivism and his awareness and love of the mutability of the
language, has claimed that “Webster’s theories anticipate in part the modern doctrine of
usage held by linguists today”. By contrast, Read (1986a:198) has laid stress on Webster’s
17
prescriptivism, saying that “Webster’s inquiring mind was wrestling with the problem of
language standard”. They are both, respectively, regarded as correct in referring to
Webster’s view of the language. However, Webster’s prescriptivism has often been ignored
in the past. Read’s opinion here suggests the incorrectness of Sidney Landau’s (1984:59)
that “Unlike Johnson, Webster had no desire to ‘fix’ the language but welcomed change as
an invigorating force” and Herbert Morton’s (1994:44) that “In contrast to Johnson, who
thought that language change, though inevitable, was undesirable and ought to be retarded,
he [Webster] welcomed the growth of English to meet new needs in new continents”. In
this regard, Charlton Laird appropriately stated the following, referring to Webster’s
prescriptivism:
Webster had previously been much concerned with fixing the language, with purifying it,
standardizing it, and purging it of dialects and improprieties. As late as April, 1786, he had written
“there is no longer any doubt that I shall be able to effect a uniformity of language and education
throughout this continent.” (Laird 1972:272)
Thus, Landau’s perspective, as well as Morton’s, may be misleading. Their claims can be
regarded as having resulted from a disregard for Webster’s ambivalent view of the language
prior to the publication of his Dictionary.
It may be worth mentioning, in passing, the reason why Webster wanted to effect such
uniformity of language and education around 1786, as revealed in the passage from Laird
above. The document which Laird referred to is not available to me. However, Webster
elucidated the point in his Dissertations on the English Language (1789), which was
published three years after 1786. In a word, he seems to have wanted to perform this for the
purpose of stabilizing and developing the early republic. The following is an extract from
the relevant part of the book:
Nothing but the establishment of schools and some uniformity in the use of books, can annihilate
differences in speaking and preserve the purity of the American tongue. [...] Small causes, such as
a nick-name, or a vulgar tone in speaking, have actually created a dissocial spirit between the
inhabitants of the different states, which is often discoverable in private business and public
deliberations. Our political harmony is therefore concerned in a uniformity of language. (Webster
1789:19-20)
Webster’s internal conflict between his descriptivism and prescriptivism seems to have
caused him to go through several changes in his view of language. Before discussing the
point, however, I will overview what grammars Webster published in chronological order,
which will be helpful to make the discussion comprehensible.
Differently from Johnson, who was essentially a man of letters, Webster was originally a
grammarian. Webster’s first grammar, the Grammatical Institute of the English Language,
was published in 1783; in the following year, he published its second part which was
continuously published in various states, Webster himself revising it several times. Ikegami
(1971:71-72) has detailed which grammatical treatises Webster issued between 1784 and
1831.
A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, Part II

1784: 1st edition
18
1785: 2nd edition

1785: 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th editions
The Rudiments of English Grammar
1790
Dissertations on the English Language
1798
A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language
1807: 1st edition
1822: 2nd edition
An Improved Grammar of the English Language
1831
As Webster published his grammars one after another in this way, his linguistic view
gradually changed, and this change naturally affected his view of grammar. However, this
is an issue which has hardly been addressed to date. Makoto Ikeda (1999:67-88) is one of
the very few authorities who have tried to elucidate Webster’s changing views of language
and English grammar. Referring to documents which are hardly available today, Ikeda
seems to have succeeded in achieving his purpose.
Thus, according to Ikeda, Webster followed the tradition of Latin grammar in his
English grammar published in 1784. This opinion sounds convincing when we read the
following passage in Ikeda’s book:
A Grammatical Institute, Part II [1st ed., 1784] follows Robert Lowth’s Short Introduction to
English Grammar (1762), as he acknowledged on some occasions; thus “in the organization and
general arrangement of the text we find on every hand the influence of the Latin grammars of the
past”. Webster’s divisions of the subject, “Grammar consists of four parts; viz. Orthography,
Prosody, Analogy [Etymology] and Syntax”, follows a tradition used by the Latin grammarians.
His definition of grammar, “Grammar is the art of speaking and writing our thoughts with
propriety”, also follows a tradition of Latin grammars (Ikeda 1999:67)
Ikeda also claimed that Webster had lost interest in Latin grammar by the year 1787. He
compared the second and third editions of Webster’s Grammatical Institute, Part II, quoting
the following passage from its second edition:
How many are the parts of speech?

Nine, viz. the Article, Noun, Pronoun, Adjective, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction,
Interjection. (Ikeda 1999:9)
From the third edition, Ikeda quoted the following:
Into how many classes may words be distributed?

Six: Nouns, Articles, Pronouns, Adjectives, Verbs [...] Particles. (Ikeda 1999:8)
Ikeda has pointed out another change in Webster’s view of grammar. This time, he referred
to the difference between the first and third editions of the Grammatical Institute, Part II:
19
Webster became more and more innovative. Although his Grammatical Institute, Part II (1784)
was criticised for novelties, it still assumed a prescriptive stance on the whole. This new grammar,
in contrast, became completely descriptive. (Ikeda 1999:88)
This opinion is based on the following assessment of the third edition:
[Webster] admits a plural form without a plural termination such as “two year,” “five mile,” “ten
foot”; he approves of the objective form following “to be” (“Me is also used in the nominative, in
popular practice – it is me. This is condemned as bad English; but in reality is an original idiom of
the language [...]”); he thinks the second person pronoun “you” can be used as singular (“The
compilers of grammars condemn the use of was with you – but in vain. The practice is universal,
except among men who learn the language by books. The best authors have given it their sanction,
and the usage is too well established to be altered.”) (Ikeda 1999:87)
Ikeda has not referred to Webster’s Dictionary, but its entry on you suggests that Webster’s
view of grammar went through a further change, though slightly, after the third edition of
the Grammatical Institute, Part II. In this entry, Webster stated:
You has been considered as in the plural only, and is so treated in the Saxon grammar. But from
the Belgic dialect, it appears to be in the singular as well as the plural, and our universal popular
usage, in applying it to a single person with a verb in the singular number, is correct. Yourself is in
the singular number.
Webster’s view of you revealed here seems to be basically the same as that in the third
edition of his Grammatical Institute, Part II which Ikeda has shown. However, Webster no
longer dared to cite the example you was. It may be said that his view of grammar had been
moderated further after 1785.
On the basis of the observations above, it is no longer surprising why authorities
occasionally disagree about Webster’s view of grammar. For instance, Thomas Pyles and
Ikegami have compared Webster’s view of grammar with Lindley Murray’s, expressing
opinions which differ markedly from each other:
Pyles:
He [Murray] and Noah Webster, also a child of the Age of Reason, have probably had more to do
with the direction and regulation of the English language than any other individual figures. (Pyles
1954:69)
Ikegami:
[...] while Murray, who was nearly his contemporary and whose work became immensely popular
in the early nineteenth century, was really more of an eighteenth century man, Webster can justly
be said to have been quite the reverse. (Ikegami 1971: 66-67)
It can be said that Pyles regarded Webster as a prescriptive grammarian before 1785 while
Ikegami saw him as basically a descriptive grammarian after that. It may safely be said that
both of these authorities failed to notice the change in Webster’s view.
20
1.5.3 Fundamentals of Webster’s View of Language as Revealed in His Dictionary
Webster’s view of language was formulated after it had undergone several changes, as
discussed above; without appreciating these changes, his view of language as revealed in
his verbal examples will hardly be understood. Thus, in the “Introduction”, “Grammar” and
“Preface” to his Dictionary, Webster expressed his view of language in the year 1828. He
began the “Introduction” with the following words:
Language or Speech is the utterance of articulate sounds or voices, rendered significant by usage,
for the expression and communication of thoughts. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st (par. 1) in the
“Introduction”])
This view of language is similar to Johnson’s, except for an emphasis on usage which I will
refer to later in this sub-section. As discussed in Section 1.4.2, Johnson thought that
language was oral at the outset. However, in addition to the words above, Webster also
stated:
Language is that which is uttered by the tongue, and if men do not write the language as it is
spoken by the great body of respectable people, they do not write the real language. (Webster
1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”])
Here, it is clear that Webster placed more importance on spoken language than written
language. In other words, he asserted that written language should be based on spoken
language. He (1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”]) confirmed this assertion by saying
that “the universal colloquial practice” was “the real and only genuine language”. This is in
stark contrast with Johnson’s view. As already discussed in Section 1.4.2, Johnson stressed
the importance of written language, as well as the risk of excessive emphasis on spoken
language, saying that all words of necessary or common use were liable to degenerate if
they were unfixed by any visible signs. It was because Webster was conscious of language
as a medium of communication that he attached importance to spoken form. Referring to
the ‘custom’ of the language, or the ‘facts of usage’ which I referred to in Section 1.2,
Webster harshly criticised language education in schools as follows:
We toil in school to learn a language which we dare not introduce into conversation, but which the
force of custom compels us to abandon. In this respect, the present study of grammar is worse than
useless. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [27th in the “Introduction”])
In conjunction with this, any set of views will have to be criticised which attempts to
convey the impression that Webster was interested in archaic words and archaic use of
words. Thus, Joseph Reed (1962:101) once claimed that many of the words Webster added
to Johnson’s Dictionary “were already obsolete or used only in archaic or poetic diction by
the beginning of the nineteenth century”. However, there is a problem with this
interpretation. It is based on Reed’s comparison of Webster’s Dictionary with the 1799
edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, the reason for which I will detail in Section 2.2. In this
respect, Webster stated the following, referring to Henry Todd’s edition of Johnson’s
Dictionary whose first edition was published in 1818:
21
The catalogue of obsolete words in Johnson has been considerably augmented by Mason and Todd.
I have, though somewhat reluctantly, inserted nearly the whole catalogue, which, I presume,
amounts to seven or eight, and perhaps, to ten thousand words. Most of these may be useful to the
antiquary; but to the great mass of readers, they are useless. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th-46th in
the “Introduction”])
In this way, Webster valued the usage and custom of language for maximizing its potential
as a medium of communication. However, Thomas Pyles (1954:67) is not correct in
claiming that Webster’s “heart was really not in syntax” and that “Sentence structure and
idiom actually concerned him but little”. Webster expressed his notion of grammar as
follows:
The Grammar of a language is a collection of principles and rules, taken from the established
usages for the nation using that language; in other words, an exhibition of the genuine structure of
the language. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st in the “Grammar”])
This statement clarifies that Webster was fully aware of and cared about the importance of
sentence structure. In this respect, Ronald Wells is correct to stress the following:
Webster recognized the inevitability of linguistic change, and the power of usage [...]. But for him
it did not follow that language could not be modified by the reason to conform to principles of
reason. (Wells 1973:64)
The following statement by Webster will clarify the point further:
It has been my aim in this work, now offered to my fellow citizens, to ascertain the true principles
of the language, in its orthography and structure; to purify it from some palpable errors, and reduce
the number of its anomalies, thus giving it more regularity and consistency in its forms, both of
words and sentences; and in this manner, to furnish a standard of our vernacular tongue [...].
(Webster 1828: n. pag. [3rd (par. 16) in the “Preface”])
In the body of his Dictionary, there are several entries which illustrate how Webster’s view
of language changed and developed. I will cite a few of them below. In 1807, when he
began compiling his Dictionary, Webster remarked, as quoted by James Boulton:
Shakespeare was a man of little learning; and altho, when he wrote the popular language of his day,
his use of words was tolerably correct, yet whenever he attempted a style beyond that, he often fell
into the grossest improprieties. Thus he speaks of the insisture of the heavens and the planets –
cords too intrinsecate – to patient a person – a pelting river farm – to sanctuarise murder –
compunctious visitings of nature – a combinate husband – of convertite – conspectuity and
corresponsive, &c. barbarisms which every correct ear instantly condemns – and for which he
certainly could plead no authority, even in the pedantic age in which he lived. (Boulton 1971:134-
135)
This passage refers to Johnson’s inclusion of ‘barbarisms’ in his Dictionary. However,

Webster treated some of the words mentioned here in his own Dictionary. He marked the
word pelting as follows:
22
W: PELTING, a.
In Shakespeare, mean; paltry. [improper]
At the same time, however, Webster did not censure the use of compunctious and
corresponsive at all:
W: COMPUNCTIOUS, a.
Pricking the conscience; giving pain for offenses committed.
Let no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose. Shak.
----------
W: CORRESPONSIVE, a.
Answerable; adapted. Shak.
Yoshihiko Ikegami has commented on Webster’s ambiguous view of lesser and worser
before 1828 as follows:
Webster considers lesser ‘hardly allowable’, though admitting that it is widely used (H4 [the
fourth edition of the Grammatical Institute, Part II] (1787) p. 86). In Ph [the Philosophical and
Practical Grammar], however, he cites lesser as the comparative along with less (1807, p. 63). But
elsewhere he notes that ‘double comparatives and superlatives, being improper and useless, are not
to be used’ and that ‘worser [...] is obsolete [...] lesser is still used’ (p. 165 note). (Ikegami
1971:57)
This ambiguity is regarded as the result of Webster’s changing view of the usage of the
word. His final decision on their use is seen in the entries on lesser and worser in his
Dictionary. The entries read that lesser is “a corruption; but too well established to be
discarded” and that worser is “a vulgar word, and not used in good writing or speaking”; it
can be said that his view of lesser here also indicates that he had become considerably more
descriptive by 1828.
1.5.4 Webster’s Study of Etymology
Thus far, I have discussed how Webster’s view of language and the language came to be
formulated and shown how it is revealed in his Dictionary, both of which are prerequisites
for analysing his verbal examples from a linguistic perspective. Here, an important question
may be raised: did Webster carry out his study of language and the language scientifically?
Quite a few authorities are sceptical on this point; some of these scholars will be referred to
in this sub-section. In most cases, the reason lies in Webster’s view of etymology. That is, it
has often been recognised as essentially based on his imagination. However, is such
interpretation justified? In order for this section to be more meaningful, and for making the
analyses in the main body of the thesis fully productive, I will need to examine and clarify
the true significance of Webster’s view of etymology here.
It has generally been acknowledged that Webster enthusiastically studied etymology to
make his Dictionary complete. According to Read (1967:166), Webster even stayed in
France and England for a year between 1824 and 1825, mainly for the study of etymology;
23
this was in the midst of his compiling the Dictionary. In consequence, this was to
considerably delay the publication of the Dictionary, which Webster was fully aware of.
Looking back on his efforts, he was to state the following later:
I endeavored, by a diligent comparison of words, having the same or cognate radical letters, in
about twenty languages, to obtain a more correct knowledge of the primary sense of original words,
of the affinities between the English and many other languages, and thus to enable myself to trace
words to their source. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st (par. 3) in the “Preface”])
I determined on a voyage to Europe, with the view of obtaining some books and some assistance
which I wanted; of learning the real state of the pronunciation of our language in England, as well
as the general state of philology in that country; and of attempting to bring about some agreement
or coincidence of opinions, in regard to unsettled points in pronunciation and grammatical
construction. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st (par. 6) in the “Preface”])
In spite of the pains Webster took, his view of etymology has very frequently met with
severe criticism. One major reason for this is his acceptance of John Tooke’s linguistic
theory and his ‘rejection’ of William Jones’s model of Indo-European linguistics; the
reason why I put the word rejection in quotation marks here is that Webster was not blessed
with the opportunity to know the significance of Jones’s achievement and thus was unable
to reject it as such (see below). Tooke was renowned as a radical politician whose varied
acquaintances included James Boswell, Jeremy Bentham, William Godwin and Thomas
Paine. He wrote a book ü0. 20! 02., or the Diversions of Purley (1786-1805), an
approach to language and grammar which made his reputation at the time but is harshly
criticized now by modern authorities for its wild speculation. No explanation is necessary
about Jones who is often described as the pioneer of comparative philology. Webster was
deeply impressed by Tooke’s linguistic theory. As Charlton Laird (1972:273) has said,
“From Tooke, Webster acquired some notion of the importance of change in language, and
the idea that the study of English etymology should be based upon a study of the older
forms of the language”. Instead, Webster was rather dismissive of Jones. In the
“Introduction” to his Dictionary, he stated:
I have to combat the opinion of that elegant scholar, Sir William Jones, who protests against the
licentiousness of etymologists, not only in transposing letters, but in totally disregarding the
vowels, and seems to admit the common origin of words only when written with the same letters,
and used in a sense precisely the same. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [9th in the “Introduction”])
This statement will sound impudent to modern linguists and grammarians who have been
brought up in the tradition of comparative philology. Albert Baugh (2002:367) has said that
Webster’s “self-assurance had its faults as well as its virtues”, and that “It led him to ignore
discoveries from Europe that were establishing the principles of comparative linguistics,
and to spend years writing etymologies that were inadequate even for his time.” Sidney
Landau (1984:61) also claimed that “The major discoveries of the German philologists,
especially Jacob Grimm, were just becoming widely known, but Webster’s natural
arrogance, contentiousness, and contempt for any theory that controverted his own blinded
him to the significance of even those discoveries with which he was familiar”.
24
When we look into the history of linguistics, however, such criticism of Webster may turn
out to be unfair. Laird has stated the following, which is basically in line with Baugh’s and
Landau’s comments but also includes another notable fact:
[...] just at this time [the beginning of the nineteenth century], of course, the evidence was coming
to light which has led to our understanding of language relationships. Webster even encountered
some of this evidence, probably during his stay at Oxford, but he rejected Sir William Jones’
findings out of hand. (Laird 1972:282)
As Laird implied in this statement, Webster actually stayed at Oxford University, and it was
probably there that he encountered Jones’s findings. However, Laird seems to have
overlooked an aspect of the history of linguistics. It is thought that Webster ‘rejected’
Jones’s findings for the very reason that he encountered it in England, probably at Oxford
University. This is apparently a strange fact. However, it should be noted that Jones’s
findings were more reputable in America than in England at the time Webster was in
England. That is, it was in 1786 that Jones mentioned the affinity of the group of languages
which was to be called ‘Indo-European languages’ later. And in that same year the first part
of Tooke’s major work on language, ü0. 20! 02. RU 7KH Diversion of Purley, was
published. This sub-section is not the place for the discussion of the difference between
Jones and Tooke, but it is necessary to see how each of them influenced authorities in
England at the time. Concerning this point, Hans Aarsleff has pointed out an important fact:
The reputation of Tooke’s Diversions is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the intellectual
and scholarly life of England during the first third of the nineteenth century. For thirty years it kept
England immune to the new philology until the results and methods finally had to be imported
from the Continent in the 1830’s, and even then they met strong opposition. (Aarsleff 1967:73)
In the study of Webster’s etymology to date, little attention has been paid to how authorities
in England at his time received it. Allen Read is one of few who have cared about this issue.
And he has revealed the following fact:
His [Webster’s] dictionary attracted the attention of an English scholar, E. H. Barker, of Thetford,
Norfolk, who forthwith wished to republish it in an English edition. In describing it to the English
public in a London journal, Barker dwelt upon Webster’s etymological advances [...]. (Read
1967:172)
The person referred to here is the English classical scholar and lexicographer Edmund
Barker, who published the first British edition of Webster’s Dictionary in 1832.
Furthermore, Read has also claimed:
Webster can be called America’s first comparative philologist. He shared the view that had
developed by the eighteenth century that there was an “affinity” among the languages that we now
call the Indo-European family. (Read 1967:163-164)
Why, then, did Webster ‘reject’ Jones? This concerns my reference at the beginning of this
sub-section that Webster did not have the advantage of knowing the significance of Jones’s
achievement. Three reasons can be given for this:
25
(1) When Webster was spending time in England, Jones was considerably less well known
than Tooke.
(2) Although Webster had been aware of Jones’s theory of Indo-European linguistic
affinities, little more than the following (quoted by David Micklethwait) was available in
print:
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure: more perfect than the
Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either. Yet bearing to both
of them a strong affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could
possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed that no philologer could examine them
all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no
longer exists: there is a similar reason though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the
Gothick and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the
Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family, if this were the place for
discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia. (Micklethwait 2000:164)
This statement of Jones’s was originally published in the third volume of the journal
‘Asiatic Researches’, which was issued by Jones himself, in 1786. Webster referred to it; he
(1828: n. pag. [9th in the “Introduction”]) clearly indicated that his criticism of Jones was
based on “Asiatic Researches, vol. 3, p. 489”. However, it would have been difficult for
most linguists to find epoch-making significance in this short passage without
commentaries by linguists such as Jacob Grimm who began to be widely known in America
shortly before or during Webster’s absence; according to Read (1967:170), Grimm’s
“Deutsche Grammatik of 1819 broke new ground, but especially the recasting in the second
edition of 1822 brought out the formulations that have come to be known as Grimm’s Law”.
It is little wonder that Webster criticized Jones, saying that Jones “seems to admit the
common origin of words only when written with the same letters” etc. as already mentioned
in this sub-section.
(3) The third reason why Webster ‘rejected’ Jones’s model of Indo-European linguistics
can be sought in Read’s account shown below, with which I agree. In a word, Webster
worked under extreme pressure at a critical time for acknowledging the significance of
historical-comparative linguistics:
Noah Webster [...] finished the manuscript of his great dictionary in January of 1825, and then was
so engrossed in seeing it through the press that he was oblivious to the new scholarship. (Read
1967:170)
The new Scandinavian findings in linguistics [...] did not impinge upon Webster until the
proofreading stage of his great dictionary in 1827 [...]. (Read 1967:167)
The three points mentioned above can be counted as the reasons for Webster to have missed
the opportunity of incorporating Jones’s finding. Actually, Webster did not reject Indo-
European linguistics intentionally.
26
There is an example which clearly shows that Webster’s study of etymology was not a
waste of time. It concerns the spelling of despatch. A considerable number of English
dictionaries today regard despatch as a variant of dispatch. In the COBUILD dictionary, for
instance, the entry on despatch merely reads “See dispatch”. The situation is the same in
the OALD. The origin of despatch has usually been ascribed to Johnson’s misspelling in his
Dictionary. James Murray (1900:41), with the recognition that dispatch stemmed from an
Italian word dispaccio, remarked in 1900 that despatch got into Johnson’s Dictionary by
“some inexplicable error”, and that “since about 1820, the filtering down of the influence of
Johnson’s Dictionary has caused this erroneous spelling despatch to become generally
known and to be looked upon as authoritative”. The entry on despatch in the second
edition of the OED still runs as follows:
The uniform English spelling from the first introduction of the word to the early part of the 19th c.
was with dis-; but in Johnson’s Dictionary the word was somehow entered under des- (although
Johnson himself always wrote dispatch, which is also the spelling of all the authors cited by him).
Noel Osselton has raised an objection to this view in 1994. He regarded the spelling
despatch as relevant to the etymology of the word as understood at Johnson’s time.
Referring to the etymology of the word in some dictionaries between the seventeenth
century and the eighteenth, Osselton pointed out the following fact:
Bailey gives the source simply as despêcher and Martin as depecher, with depeché for the noun.
The Gazophylacium says “from the Fr[anco]-G[allica] Despescher, or the Ital. Dispacciare, the
same.” The full entry in Skinner (to whom Johnson acknowledged an indebtedness for
etymologies) is as follows: “Dispatch à Fr[anco]-G[allica] Despecher, Despescher, It.
Dispacciare, Spacciare, Expedire, q.d. Dispedire, Despeditare.” (Osselton 1994:309)
Based on this, he has suggested the possibility that Johnson may have considered that the
word was not from Italian but French. This suggestion of Osselton’s becomes justified
when we read the entry on despatch in Johnson’s Dictionary. Johnson clearly indicated the
following:
J: To DESPATCH. v.a. [depescher, French.]
However, more than one hundred and fifty years before Osselton’s objection, Webster was
well aware of the historical change in the view of the etymology of dispatch. In the
“Introduction” to his Dictionary, Webster stated that:
[...] dispatch, which had, from time immemorial, been written with i, was changed into despatch,
on the wonderful discovery, that the word is derived from the French depêcher. (Webster 1828: n.
pag. [30th in the “Introduction”])
In the body of his Dictionary, Webster provided more etymological information on the
word. His explanation in the entry on dispatch reads as follows:
W: DISPATCH, v.t. [Fr. depécher; Sp. despachar [...] It. dispacciare; Arm. dibech, disbachat.]
27
Here, Webster also showed the equivalent words of dispatch in French, Spanish, Italian and
Armoric.
It may be worth pointing out at the end of this discussion that Webster’s theory of the
origin of language has often been questioned. Richard Rollins (1980:128-130) has
introduced relevant censure by such authorities as Mitford Mathews, Joseph Friend,
Charlton Laird, George Krapp and James Murray. The major reason for this censure is that
Webster was theological in discussing the origin of language. The part of the ‘Origin of
Language’ in the “Introduction” to Webster’s Dictionary begins like this:
[...] we may infer that language was bestowed on Adam, in the same manner as all his other
faculties and knowledge, by supernatural power; or in other words, was of divine origin. (Webster
1828: n. pag. [1st in the “Introduction”])
Laird has concisely summarized Webster’s opinion beginning with these words:
The Word said that Jehovah talked with Adam; therefore, the power of speech and at least the
working rudiments of a language were the immediate gift of God. This language was uniquely
preserved by Noah and his sons, after the flood, and Webster named all European and many
Asiatic languages Shemitic, on the theory that they were developed by the descendants of Shem,
and he believed that his language is now preserved in a form most archaic and hence most pure in
what he called Chaldee. (Laird 1972:281)
Certainly, as far as the origin of language is concerned, Webster’s view was scriptural and
far from scientific. However, this does not mean that his description of etymology is of no
value. As analysed above in this sub-section, much of his etymological information is
worthy of appreciation. In this sense, Rollins’s (1980:130) claim that “Webster’s
etymology was simply a literal extrapolation of scriptural truth into another field” seems to
be a hasty conclusion.
Johnson went through hardship, aiming to fix the language while at the same time
recognising its impossibility. Webster was also long torn between prescriptivism and
descriptivism. He was originally prescriptive and gradually became more descriptive,
discarding his interest in Latin grammar, which is closely related to ‘reason’, and attaching
ever more importance to the “universal colloquial practice”, which he thought “the real and
only genuine language”; I discussed in Section 1.2 the concepts of ‘reason’ and the ‘facts of
usage’, and their relevance to prescriptivism and descriptivism. He had not entirely
abandoned prescriptivism until his Dictionary was published in 1828, but it would be
wrong to regard him at that time as genuinely descriptive. This is a point which will be seen,
for instance, in Section 5.1.4, but Webster was sometimes more prescriptive than Johnson.
And in the main body of the thesis Chapters 4 to 8, such unique aspects of his view of
grammar will be revealed through the analysis of his verbal examples to which little
attention has been paid to date.
With regard to Webster’s study of etymology, I discussed it as proof of his relatively
scholarly approach to language, which is in opposition to quite a few authorities who have
28
regarded it as proving his unscientific and scriptural view of language. If his study of
etymology was scientifically done even with the historical limitations, as it actually was, it
can be said that it helped him to formulate the principle on the basis of which he could
judge the ‘correct’ usage of words independent of Johnson’s view of grammar. Concerning
concrete examples, I will refer to them, for instance, in Sections 5.2.2, 7.4, 7.6, 8.1.2 and
8.2.3.
2: Methodology
2.1 Introduction
In this section, I will itemize seven procedures which were adopted in this thesis: selecting
an appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionary to be compared with Webster’s; adopting a
sampling method which is concerned with the analysis of general tendencies of Johnson’s
and Webster’s practices in supplying verbal examples; adopting a statistical method in the
analyses of selected entries which comprises the core of my methods; selecting books on
grammar to be based on in the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples;
distinguishing citations and invented examples in their dictionaries which has sometimes
troubled authorities; finding a solution to the problem of authorship of some works which is
related to the tabulation of the results of my analyses; and selecting an appropriate version
of the English Bible for the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s biblical citations.
These seven procedures concern the essence of the thesis. Apart from them, I also
adopted a few other procedures. Specifically, I set up a method for comparing Johnson's
Dictionary and two continental dictionaries, and that for recording sources of citations
within the range of entries on words for the letter L; they are, respectively, explained in
Sections 3.1.2 and 4.1.1.
2.2 Selecting an Appropriate Edition of Johnson’s Dictionary
In any type of comparative study of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, the first task to
be carried out is to determine an appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionary to be collated
with Webster’s which was published in 1828. As it commanded wide popularity, Johnson’s
Dictionary had gone through various editions by 1828. In addition to this, Webster did not
himself clarify which edition of Johnson’s Dictionary he referred to. Therefore, authorities
have been divided over the issue of which edition of Johnson’s Dictionary should be
compared with Webster’s.
In this situation, in his ‘Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson’ (1962), a pioneering
article in the comparative study of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, Joseph Reed used
the 1799 edition of Johnson’s Dictionary. The reason for this is, as Reed (1962:95) has
remarked, that a copy of this edition which was owned by New York Public Library as of
1962 contains Webster’s manuscript notes. However, there is a problem about Reed’s
selection. Webster’s manuscript notes in the edition were jotted down for the preparation of
his other dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language published in 1806.
Reed (1962:95) has also admitted this fact. It cannot be determined whether Webster
continued to refer to the 1799 edition after 1806. Besides, in his Dictionary published in
1828, Webster (1828: n. pag. [45th-46th in the “Introduction”]) mentioned Johnson’s
Dictionary revised by Henry Todd in 1818. In contrast to Reed, Joseph Friend (1967:38-46)
compared Webster’s Dictionary with the 1806 edition of Johnson’s published in the year
when Webster began compiling his Dictionary. In this respect, Friend’s selection
30
apparently accords with reason. It is very probable that Webster referred to the newest
edition of Johnson’s Dictionary of 1806 throughout the task of compiling his Dictionary.
Still, however, Friend’s selection may also pose a problem. According to David
Micklethwait’s discovery, Webster referred to Alexander Chalmers’s abridged edition of
Johnson’s Dictionary which was published in 1820, the year when Webster was in the
midst of compiling his Dictionary. Micklethwait (2000:183-184) proved his discovery
through his analysis of citations, entry words and definitions in both dictionaries,
suggesting the possibility that by the time Webster reached the letter L, “he may have been
using Chalmers as his primary source”. In such a problematic situation, it is hardly possible
to determine the one and only edition of Johnson’s Dictionary that Webster may have
referred to. Furthermore, whichever editions of Johnson’s Dictionary Webster may have
used, it is generally acknowledged that Johnson was not involved in any of revised editions
of his Dictionary except for an abridged edition in 1756 and the fourth edition in 1773. And
it is also generally recognised that there is little possibility that Webster used the first
edition or fourth of Johnson’s when he compiled his Dictionary; as to the abridged edition
in 1756, it was a small dictionary and it is hardly imaginable that Webster made it a
primary source.
However, the problem of selecting an appropriate edition of Johnson’s Dictionary
becomes complicated when the purpose of comparison between Johnson’s and Webster’s
dictionaries lies in the clarification of how Webster borrowed from and modified Johnson’s
Dictionary published at Webster’s time. I have not addressed this point in the thesis. Rather
than trying to clarify the difference between Webster’s Dictionary and one of the editions
of Johnson’s which were revised approximately 70 years after its first edition, I have tried
to see the difference between the most elaborate dictionary in Britain in the middle of the
eighteenth century and that in America in the first half of the nineteenth century in terms of
the technique of supplying verbal examples. As discussed in Section 1.2, my fundamental
recognition is that the dictionary is a product that serves the needs of the time. When I
based myself on this recognition, the solution of the problem of selecting a particular
edition of Johnson’s Dictionary came a step closer. Theodore Stenberg was also an
authority who took this view. For his analysis of how the treatment of phrases and
sentences from Alexander Pope in the English dictionary changed over time, Stenberg
(1944:197-210) collated the first and fourth editions of Johnson’s Dictionary, the first
edition of Webster’s Dictionary and the second edition of Webster’s New International
Dictionary (1984) without referring to any editions of Johnson’s Dictionary after 1773.
Following this precedent in part, I have compared Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 with the
original first edition of Johnson’s. In this selection of mine, there lay an idea that the two
dictionaries were compiled in their respective historical contexts. This means that whatever
similarities there may be between Webster’s Dictionary and other editions of Johnson’s
Dictionary, they are regarded as the results of Webster’s selection based on his criteria in
accordance with his time.
This selection of the edition of Johnson’s Dictionary has proved to be beneficial
primarily in two respects. Firstly, it has allowed me to compare Johnson’s and Webster’s
original view of the language which are revealed in their dictionaries. Secondly, I was able
to analyse Johnson’s verbal examples in relation to the historical background of his
Dictionary, thus comparing the results of the analysis with those in the case of Webster’s.
These would have been not possible if I had used any of the editions of Johnson’s
31
Dictionary which was published at Webster’s time and can hardly be said to reflect
Johnson’s original view of the language.
2.3 Adopting a Sampling Method
With the intention of determining general tendencies of Johnson’s and Webster’s practices
in supplying verbal examples, I have adopted a sampling method. In the study of English
dictionaries, various types of sampling methods have been adopted to date. For instance, in
analysing the similarities and differences between Johnson’s Dictionary and the second
edition of Nathan Bailey’s Dictionarium Britannicum (1736), a dictionary Johnson referred
to when compiling his Dictionary, Daisuke Nagashima (1983:147-158) compared their
respective entries under the letter C. Gabriele Stein (1985) studied thirty English
dictionaries before Robert Cawdrey’s A Table Alphabeticall (1604) by investigating
stretches from the letters A, B and H in them according to her necessity.
With regard to the comparative study of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, three
representative authorities, namely, Joseph Reed (1962), Joseph Friend (1967) and David
Micklethwait (2000), have agreed on a selection from the letter L of the two dictionaries.
According to Reed (1962:95), “This was a sample of convenient size and had the added
virtue of its position in the book: Webster had by this time settled down to a regular modus
operandi ”. In the same way, Micklethwait (2000:180) has claimed that “To be sure of
finding Webster loping through the lexicon at a typically even space, we must look at him
at work on the letter L”. Though Friend has not said anything about the reason for his
selection of the L’s, he is assumed to have thought like the other two authorities. Theodore
Stenberg’s method is different from those of the three authorities. In order to compare
Johnson’s and Webster’s use of citations from Pope, he investigated first 50 pages from the
A’s, G’s, M’s and S’s and the first 29 pages from the W’s in their dictionaries. He stated the
following:
I arrived at these particular letters by beginning with A and taking every sixth letter from there on,
except for W. There are not enough pages of Y’s (or X’s or Z’s) to furnish the additional twenty-
nine pages needed to make the total approximately one-tenth of the Dictionary. I therefore chose
the W’s. (Stenberg 1944:197)
This was, Stenberg (1944:197) said, to make his sampling “fairly representative of the
whole dictionary”. In the light of these examples, I have adopted the method of Reed,
Friend and Micklethwait’s. There are two reasons for this selection. Firstly, I agree with
Reed and Micklethwait that Webster is thought to have matured as a lexicographer by the
time he arrived at the L’s; this is conceivable of Johnson, as well. Secondly, I thought this
selection would serve as a basis for a comparative analysis of the three authorities. As
discussed in the previous sub-section, Reed compared Webster’s Dictionary with the 1799
edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, Friend with its 1806 edition and Micklethwait with its
1820 edition. None of the three compared Webster’s Dictionary with the first edition of
Johnson’s Dictionary. By comparing the L’s in the respective first editions of the two
32
dictionaries, I expected that some differences between Webster’s Dictionary and Johnson’s
which had been unnoticed so far might be revealed.
As a result of having adopted the method, it may safely be said that I have succeeded in
revealing the general tendencies of Johnson’s and Webster’s practices in supplying citations,
respectively. Besides, the use of the method has revealed that in many respects the
authorities of Webster’s Dictionary have long held misconceptions about Johnson’s verbal
examples. This is mainly because they have generally compared Webster’s Dictionary with
the editions of Johnson’s Dictionary which had been revised by the lexicographers well
more than forty years after Johnson. And this means that the authorities may have had
misconceptions about the differences between Johnson’s verbal examples and Webster’s
until today.
2.4 Adopting a Statistical Method in the Analysis of Selected Entries
It was necessary in this thesis to analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s practices in certain types
of entries, as well as their usual practices in the whole of the dictionaries, in supplying
verbal examples. In this regard, I have chosen to adopt a special type of statistical method.
Up to the present, various statistical analyses have been performed in the study of
lexicography. Quite recently, Charlotte Brewer (1999:48-49) has used line charts to show
how editors of the OED supplied citations; for instance, she proved that they quoted
especially frequently from sources which had been published in a decade, e.g. between
1291 and 1300 and between 1391 and 1400, in a figure entitled ‘OED Quotations 1151-
1470’. In his analysis of historic dictionaries in Britain, America and Japan, Yoshiro
Kojima (1999) often counted the number of their entry-words; this is beneficial to grasp an
aspect of historical changes in lexicographical technique. With regard to Johnson’s
Dictionary, when he compared it with the second edition of Bailey’s Dictionarium
Britannicum (1736), one of the sources of Johnson’s Dictionary as I mentioned in the
previous sub-section, Daisuke Nagashima (1983:148) has demonstrated how many entries
Johnson added to and eliminated from Bailey’s Dictionary. Such a method as Nagashima’s
has also been adopted by Joseph Reed (1962:95-105) in his comparison of Johnson’s and
Webster’s dictionaries. Reed (1962:95-105) has further made use of the method to analyse
the lexicographers’ practice in supplying citations; he has tried to show how many citations
Webster added to and eliminated from Johnson’s Dictionary.
In this way, statistical methods have often been adopted by quite a few authorities; two
other examples related to Johnson’s citations are discussed in Section 4.1.1. However, as
far as Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples are concerned, no authority seems to have
thought of classifying entries according to the types of their entry-words before adopting
the methods. In other words, statistical methods adopted by Reed and others so far have
been useful to reveal how Johnson and Webster generally tended to supply verbal examples
in the whole of their dictionaries. I do not deny the importance of such methods. As
discussed in the previous sub-section, I myself tried to show Johnson’s and Webster’s usual
practices in supplying verbal examples with the adoption of my sampling method. However,
such methods alone do not clarify how Johnson and Webster supplied verbal examples in
relation to their view of grammar. Therefore, I further showed from what sources and how
33
frequently from each of them Johnson and Webster quoted in supplying citations in
respective entries on verbs of high frequency, their inflected forms, prepositions,
prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries; I also treated entries on primary verbs and
their inflected forms, but a statistical method was not used for this task because of the small
number of citations and others, of which I will discuss further in Section 8.2.1.
The reason I selected these types of entries is that my primary concern has been the
clarification of the difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s practice in supplying
citations for function words, for words which require sophisticated knowledge of grammar
in their treatment, and for infinitives of verbs of high frequency whose characteristic lies in
wide range of senses rather than grammatical function. As to entries on preterites and
participles of verbs of high frequency, most of which are irregularly inflected, I thought
their analysis would clarify to what extent the lexicographers were conscious of
morphology in compiling their dictionaries. And I expected that the analysis of entries on
inflected forms of primary verbs would reveal the relations between their citations, if they
had supplied them, and their consciousness of the grammatical categories of person,
number and mood. Besides, I have taken account of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice of
supplying invented examples, as well as that of supplying citations, within the range of
entries cited here. Then, I also provided tables, to the extent possible, which reflect the
results of my analyses.
Here, it naturally becomes necessary to solve the problem of the selection of entries on
verbs of high frequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. As to entries on verbs of
high frequency, Johnson (1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45) in the “Preface”]) enumerated the
examples of “verbs too frequent in the English language”: “bear, break, come, cast, full, get,
give, do, put, set, go, run, make, take, turn, throw”. The entries on these words are generally
thought to be appropriate for the purpose of my investigation, though I regard full in the
examples as a misspelling of fall and do as a primary verb. Therefore, I selected entries on
bear (v.t.), bear (v.i.), break (v.t.), break (v.i.), come (v.i.), cast (v.t.), cast (v.i.), fall (v.t.),
fall (v.i.), get (v.t.), get (v.i.), give (v.t.), give (v.i.), go (v.i.), put (v.t.), put (v.i.), set (v.t.),
set (v.i.), run (v.t.), run (v.i.), make (v.t.), make (v.i.), take (v.t.), take (v.i.), turn (v.t.),
turn (v.i.), throw (v.t.) and throw (v.i.) in Johnson’s Dictionary as well as in Webster’s.
As for the selection of entries on prepositions, neither Johnson nor Webster showed a set
of examples. However, it will be sufficient if I investigate entries on 19 prepositions in both
dictionaries: about, after, at, before, below, by, down, from, for, in, into, of, off, on, over,
through, to, upon and with. Entries on prepositional adverbs to be investigated can be
determined based on the selection of those on prepositions. Out of the 19 prepositions of
my selection, Johnson thought that at least 12 of them also function as adverbs, since he
provided entries on the 12 words as adverbs in the first edition of his Dictionary. These are
about, after, before, below, by, down, in, off, on, over, through and to. I have investigated
entries on these prepositional adverbs in the two dictionaries.
In investigating the entries determined thus, I have not dealt with Johnson’s and
Webster’s verbal examples and comments, which they occasionally provided, in sub-entries
provided for idioms. This also applies to entries on other types of words to be dealt with
except for those in the L’s. This is because I intended to focus attention on the
lexicographers’ verbal examples in relation to the case where their relevant entry-words
retain their original senses. Both lexicographers provided quite a few sub-entries for phrasal
verbs, for instance, supplying a large number of verbal examples there. I did not include
34
sub-entries on them in my analysis. Concerning this type of idiom, Geoffrey Leech and Jan
Svartvik (1975:263) have correctly stated that for some phrasal verbs “the meaning of the
combination cannot be built up from the meanings of the individual verb and adverb, for
example: catch on (=‘understand’), give in (=‘surrender’), turn up (=‘appear, arrive’) etc.”.
To a greater or lesser extent, such a situation is also true to other types of idioms. Part of
Tom McArthur’s (1992:497) definition of idiom seems to be convincing: “An expression
unique to a language, especially one whose sense is not predictable from the meanings and
arrangement of its elements, such as kick the bucket a slang term meaning ‘to die’, which
has nothing obviously to do with kicking or buckets”. If I had also dealt with sub-entries on
phrases in which original senses of words are lost, there would have been little meaning to
separate entries on verbs of high frequency, those on prepositions, those on modal
auxiliaries and so on from each other; my intention has been to analyse how Johnson and
Webster supplied verbal examples for words which retain their original senses. For this
reason, I have not treated sub-entries on idioms in their dictionaries. This naturally means
that the number of verbal examples in each table, which I referred to above in this sub-
section, does not include that in sub-entries provided for idioms.
The analysis of how Johnson and Webster supplied verbal examples for the respective
types of words cited in this sub-section comprises the core of the thesis. And the chapters in
the main body of the thesis are arranged in accordance with this analysis. The results of the
analysis have proved that Johnson and Webster respectively supplied their verbal examples
based on their view of the usage of the types of words. Besides, the verbal examples
clarified quite a few differences between Johnson and Webster in terms of their view of the
language, many of which are thought to have been unnoticed to date. In this sense, it can
safely be said from a broad perspective that I have successfully achieved the purposes of
the thesis owing largely to the analysis.
2.5 Selecting Books on Grammar to Be Based on

in the Analysis of Their Verbal Examples
Some remarks have to be made here about two types of books to be based on in this thesis:
the books which provide information on prevailing perspectives on grammar at the times of
Johnson and Webster, and the books of contemporary grammar which can be regarded as
authoritative. As for the former, I have mainly referred to Sterling Leonard’s reissued
edition of The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800 (1962). As its title
indicates, this book mainly deals with the view of grammarians’ in the eighteenth century,
but it also abounds with information on Webster’s view of grammar; Leonard has discussed
Webster in 60 sections out of 188 which comprise the work. Though relatively old, this
book has long been regarded as authoritative among experts on historical grammar. Bertil
Sundby (1985:158), for instance, has said about the book, “The linguistic norms of the Age
of Reason have been well described by Leonard (1929), and the topical glossary he includes
is useful as far as it goes”. Leonard’s book is still regarded as useful to grasp the
generalities of grammarians’ thoughts at Johnson’s and Webster’s times, though for
specialized study of historical grammar, Sundby’s Dictionary of English Normative
Grammar, 1700-1800 (1991), published in rivalry with Leonard with the collaboration of
35
Anne Bjørge and Kari Haugland, seems to be more useful. In addition to Leonard’s book, I
have occasionally referred to Hans Aarsleff’s Study of Language in England, 1780-1860
(1967); this book also deals with grammarians’ perspectives at Webster’s time.
Concerning books on contemporary grammars, I have basically used Randolph Quirk et
al.’s Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985). Few authorities will be
against the perspective that this book is authoritative in the study of contemporary grammar.
It may apparently be strange that I have regarded the selection of books as one of the
methods adopted in the thesis. However, it was important for me to solve the problem of
from what grammatical perspectives I should interpret some of the findings in the thesis. It
can even be said that how I solve the problem partially determines the characteristic of the
thesis. I hope my solution with the use of the books I cited in this sub-section will be
beneficial to cultivate the field of the study of English lexicography.
2.6 Distinguishing Citations and Invented Examples
Verbal examples in the dictionary can generally be divided into two types: citations and
invented examples. Ronald Wells (1973:115) called them ‘quoted citations’ and ‘invented
illustrations’, and Anthony Cowie (1989:58) ‘quotations’ and ‘made-up examples’.
Nowadays, the two types of verbal examples can be clearly distinguished from each other.
In Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries, however, the boundary between the two is
difficult to draw. One reason for this is that Johnson frequently modified phrases and
sentences in original sources, and Webster borrowed quite a few of Johnson’s modified
‘citations’ in his Dictionary. There are frequently occasions when Webster modified such
‘citations’ further. As to Johnson, it is widely known that he modified original phrases and
sentences. For instance, in the entry on sophistically in his Dictionary, Johnson supplied
the following, claiming that this was from Jonathan Swift:
Bolingbroke argues most sophistically. Swift.
William Wimsatt (1959:75) has pointed out that the original sentence of this is as follows:
I must observe that my Lord Bolingbroke, from the effects of his kindness to me, argues most
sophistically. The fall from a million to a hundred thousand pounds is not so great, as from eight
hundred pounds a year to one.
Robert DeMaria (1986:17) has cited another interesting example. He found the following in
the entry on learn (v.a.) in Johnson’s Dictionary:
You taught me language, and my profit on’t

Is, I know not how to curse: the red plague rid you,
For learning me your language. Shakesp. Tempest.
This is a modified sentence whose original is the following, the renowned sentence from
Shakespeare’s Tempest:
36
You taught me language, and my profit on’t

Is, I know how to curse: the red plague rid you,
For learning me your language.
Concerning the difference between the two, DeMaria (1986:17) has claimed that “Johnson
acknowledges the moral, educational nature of” his Dictionary, and that “The Dictionary is
a moral teacher”. And in their article the ‘selection and use of the illustrative quotations in
Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary ’ (1972:61-72), Gwin Kolb and Ruth Kolb have shown numerous
examples which illustrate Johnson’s modification of phrases and sentences taken from
original sources. Such modification is what Johnson himself admitted in the “Preface” to
his Dictionary. He stated:
The examples are too often injudiciously truncated, and perhaps sometimes, I hope very rarely,
alleged in a mistaken sense; for in making this collection I trusted more to memory, than, in a state
of disquiet and embarrassment, memory can contain, and purposed to supply at the review what
was left incomplete in the first transcription. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 70) in the
“Preface”])
It may be worth pointing out, in passing, that Tetsuro Hayashi (1978:104) claimed that one
of the characteristics of Johnson’s Dictionary lies in “accurate quotations”, and that they
were the “essentials of the most authoritative and prescriptive dictionary of the English
language”; this claim is found erroneous when the analyses by Wimsatt, DeMaria and the
Kolbs, which are mentioned above, are referred to.
In spite of this situation, however, I have regarded Johnson’s verbal examples whose
sources are indicated as citations and other examples as invented examples. And I have also
treated Webster’s verbal examples in the same way. It was, in a sense, natural for Johnson
and Webster to modify original phrases and sentences. As discussed in Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3
and 1.5.2, this is because both of them held a prescriptive view of the language to a greater
or lesser degree throughout the task of compiling their dictionaries. The verbatim copying
of original phrases and sentences is a matter which basically concerns the lexicographers of
descriptive dictionaries. Besides, prior to the first volume of the OED (1884), the
importance of descriptiveness had not been fully recognized among lexicographers. Richard
Trench (1857:9-10), an advocate of the compilation of the OED, has censured such short-
comings in Johnson’s Dictionary as an insufficient number of entry-words in his renowned
On Some Deficiencies in Our English Dictionaries (1857), but even he did not refer to its
inaccurate citations.
Concerning Webster’s Dictionary, there were other problems to be solved. One of them
is that Webster very frequently indicated the names of authors and titles of books in entries
in his Dictionary. This is expounded in Section 4.3.3, but he often practiced this, evidently
without supplying citations. Examples are:
W: INTERMARRIAGE, n.
Marriage between two families, where each takes one and gives another. Johnson. Addison.
W: MELTER, n.
One that melts any thing. Derham.
37
In these examples, two phrases beginning with the words “Marriage” and “One” can in no
way be regarded as citations, though the names of authors are attached to them. When
Webster supplied citations, he did this in small-sized letters. Examples are shown as below,
which also indicate that his citations generally follow definitions:
W: IMP, n. 1.
A son; offspring; progeny.
The tender imp was weaned. Fairfax.
A lad of life, an imp of fame. Shak.
W: LARGELY, adv. 3.
Liberally; bountifully.
- How he lives and eats;
How largely gives. Dryden.
I have regarded phrases and sentences written in small-sized letters, to which sources are
put, as Webster’s citations, though I have shown them in normal-sized letters in every
relevant sub-section for the sake of convenience; I exceptionally write them in small-sized
letters here to make the point explicit. Therefore, such a phrase as the following with
‘Harris’ has been regarded as a definition, and the sentence with ‘J. Appleton’ as a citation:
W: MECHANICS, n.
A mathematical science which shows the effects of powers or moving forces, so far as they are
applied to engines, and demonstrates the laws of motion. Harris.
It is a well known truth in mechanics, that the actual and theoretical powers of a machine will
never coincide. J. Appleton.
This method differs from Joseph Reed’s. He generally regarded phrases and sentences to
which names of authors or titles of books are put as citations. This is evident from his
statement which has been made in his analysis of citations for entries in the stretch of the
L’s in Webster’s Dictionary. Based on the recognition that Webster added 448 citations to
Johnson’s Dictionary in the L’s, Reed (1962:104) claimed that “more than half of the
illustrations he added to Johnson (at least in the L’s) came from the Bible and an
encyclopaedia”. I have expounded on Webster’s citations in the L’s in Section 4.3, but
Webster did not add as many as 448 citations to Johnson’s Dictionary within the range, and
he rarely supplied citations from an encyclopaedia there. Reed is naturally thought to have
also regarded the following type of passage as the citation, to which the abbreviation
‘Encyc.’ indicating ‘encyclopaedia’ is put in normal-sized letters:
W: LEVELING, n.
The art or practice of finding a horizontal line, or of ascertaining the different elevations of objects
on the surface of the earth; in other words, the difference in the distance of objects from the center
of the earth. Encyc.
This is the whole contents of the entry on leveling. Webster may have referred to an
encyclopaedia in writing this passage, but it is not written in small-sized letters. My
recognition is that it is a definition and not a citation.
38
However, it has to be admitted that there is one exceptional case. That is, though quite
rare, there are phrases and sentences which Webster wrote in normal-sized letters which
can still be regarded as citations. The following is the example:
W: LEAST, a.
Least is often used without the noun to which it refers. “I am the least of the apostles,” that is, the
least apostle of all the apostles. 1 Cor. xv.
In this example, Webster put the sentence “I am the least of the apostles” in quotation
marks, indicating its source. In such a case as this, the relevant phrases and sentences have
been regarded as citations. Incidentally, in contrast to the indications of other sources,
Webster did not italicize the titles of books in the Bible, as shown here.
There was one more problem about Webster’s verbal examples which was caused by his
practice of supplying them to illustrate the usage of words preceded by as. I have regarded
such examples as invented, even in the case where names of authors and titles of books are
put to them. Examples are:
W: GARB, n. 1.
Dress; clothes; habit; as the garb of a clergyman or judge.
W: OUTSTARE, v.t.
To face down; to browbeat; to outface with effrontery; as we say, to stare out of countenance.
Shak.
The characteristics of this type of verbal example are that it is written in normal-sized
letters and is not put in quotation marks.
The more I perused Webster’s verbal examples, the more I came to recognize how little
they had been read by many authorities so far. It was surprising that Reed did not seem to
have had differentiated Webster’s citations, invented examples and definitions with
authors’ names and the titles of works. Besides, to the extent of my knowledge, few
authorities have analysed Webster’s verbal examples as closely as Reed. For this reason, it
was necessary for me to produce a method for the analysis of the examples by myself. It
seems that the method has successfully functioned to compare his verbal examples with
Johnson’s.
2.7 Finding a Solution to the Problem of Authorship of Some Works
In tabulating the results of my statistical analyses, there were problems with the authorship
of some works which constitute sources of citations. As a rule, I have indicated the names
of authors, not the titles of works, in tables in order to show how frequently Johnson and
Webster quoted from relevant sources. However, they occasionally put the titles The Tatler
(1709-1711), The Guardian (1713) and The Spectator (1711-1712 and 1714), sometimes in
full and sometimes in abbreviated form, but without indicating the names of authors.
Actually, these are magazines which were edited by Joseph Addison and Sir Richard Steele.
To which of them the relevant phrases and sentences should be ascribed is hard to
39
determine. Moreover, there is a historical fact that quite a few men of letters contributed
articles to the magazines, namely, George Berkeley, Alexander Pope, John Gay, Jonathan
Swift, Eustace Budgell, John Phillips and so on.
This situation has sometimes troubled authorities who have tried to analyse Johnson’s
citations, especially, by adopting statistical methods. As far as I can judge, the problem has
been dealt with in two ways. In his unpublished dissertation, Lewis Freed (1939:45-87) has
ascribed the authorship of phrases and sentences from the three magazines entirely to
Addison. However, this practice has been censured by Theodore Stenberg, based on his
own analysis. Stenberg (1944:203) claimed that “I have come to the conclusion that not
much more than ninety percent of the Spectator quotations are Addison’s, and that almost
all of those from the Tatler are Steel’s”. In contrast to Freed, Allen Read tried to solve the
problem by showing the possible range of the quantity of phrases and sentences from
Addison. Specifically, Read (1986b:37) claimed that citations from Addison account for 3.8
percent to 4.3 percent within the range of the M’s in Johnson’s Dictionary; 3.8 percent here
refers to citations with the indication of Addison, and 4.3 percent those with the indication
of Addison and the three magazines.
My solution has been different from those of both Freed’s and Read’s. That is, when
Johnson and Webster put the name Addison to their citations, I have regarded them as
coming from Addison, but when they put the titles Tatler, Spectator or Guardian to their
citations, I have considered them as what they are. In other words, I have not tried to
determine the authorship of phrases and sentences taken from the three magazines in the
two dictionaries, and instead I have indicated the titles of the magazines in relevant tables. I
have also applied this method to other cases where Johnson and Webster took phrases and
sentences from the works whose authors are hardly determinable, though such cases have
been quite small in number.
Another problem was caused by the authorship of a book entitled The Causes of the
Decay of Christian Piety (1667). Johnson often quoted from this in his Dictionary. The
authorship of this book is not exactly known. However, it is generally acknowledged that
the same author wrote a book entitled The Whole Duty of Man (1658) and that there is a
strong probability that Richard Allestree, a theologian, wrote this. For instance, Margaret
Drabble (1985:1065), an authority on English literature, has claimed that the author of The
Whole Duty of Man, therefore that of The Cause of the Decay of Christian Piety, is
Allestree. Besides, Allen Reddick (1996:231-232), who has expounded on the compilation
process of Johnson’s Dictionary, has said that “Of Allestree’s Whole Duty of Man, Johnson
said that he had disliked it as a child but years later recommended it for study to Daniel
Astle” and that “Johnson quoted extensively from Allestree’s anonymous Decay of Piety
(1667) [...] in the first edition of the Dictionary”. Based on such general acknowledgement,
I have determined to ascribe the relevant authorship to Allestree.
In determining the authors of some sources of Johnson’s and Webster’s citations, I seem
to have encountered the problem which troubled the authorities who tackled the statistical
analysis of Johnson’s verbal examples. It is hardly possible to determine the original
authors of all of the citations. As far as I can judge, the definitive solution to the problem is
yet to be found. I formulated the method as discussed in this sub-section so that it may be
helpful to the achievement of the analyses in the thesis, and it has proved to function well
for the assessment of the linguistic significance of Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal
examples.
40
2.8 Selecting an Appropriate Version of the English Bible
I have often referred to Johnson’s and Webster’s use of biblical citations. In this regard, it
was necessary to select an appropriate version of the English Bible to compare them with
relevant original phrases and sentences. As to Johnson’s biblical citations, it has been a
customary practice among authorities to use Authorized Version (AV) for such a purpose.
For instance, Maurice Quinlan has confirmed this throughout his book, Samuel Johnson: A
Layman’s Religion (1964). Seeing no problem in such a practice, I followed it.
The problem is, however, which version of the English Bible should be used when
referring to biblical citations in Webster’s Dictionary. According to Bruce Metzger’s
(2001:81-90) account, two versions of the English Bible were published in the 217 years
between AV and Webster’s Dictionary; one is Edward Harwood’s New Testament (1768)
published in England, and the other is Charles Thomson’s Bible (1808) published in
America. Concerning the former, Metzger (2001:82), showing its title A Liberal
Translation of the New Testament, has indicated that it does not include the Old Testament.
Webster frequently quoted from both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, if Metzger’s
analysis is correct, it can hardly be the case that Webster used Harward’s translation. As for
Thomson’s version, Metzger has stated the following:
[...] at the time of its publication, [...] it never enjoyed wide popular appeal. Consequently, it had
only a limited sale and was not financially successful. Many of the unsold copies were eventually
disposed as waste paper. (Metzger 2001:86)
If the situation is as stated here, it is also hardly unthinkable that Webster used this version.
However, more to the point, Metzger has stated the following after his discussion of the
two versions of the English Bible:
Following the initial publication of his American Dictionary in 1828, Webster began to give
serious attention to revising the King James Version of the Bible. [...] Webster held that version
[AV] in high regard. “Its language,” he said, “is in general correct and perspicuous; the genuine
popular English of Saxon origin; peculiarly adapted to the subjects, and in many passages, uniting
sublimity to beautiful simplicity.” (Metzger 2001:91)
Metzger has also quoted a long passage from the preface to Webster’s version of the
English Bible which shows why Webster thought of revising it. The passage begins, as:
[...] in the lapse of two or three centuries changes have taken place, which, in particular passages,
impair the beauty, in others, obscure the sense of the original languages. Some words have fallen
into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was
when they were introduced into the version [...]. (Metzger 2001:91)
Induced by Metzger’s discussion and the citation above, I consulted Webster’s version of
the Bible, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, in the Common
Version. With the Amendments of the Language (1833), and found its preface beginning as
follows:
41
The English version of the sacred scriptures, now in general use, was first published in the year
1611, in the reign of James I. Although the translators made many alterations in the language of
former versions, yet no small part of the language is the same, as that of the versions made in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth. (Webster 1833: n. pag. [1st in the “Preface”])
Following this statement, Webster discussed the principles by which he revised AV. The
fact that Webster revised AV in this way, publishing it only five years after the Dictionary,
seems proof that he usually used AV during the compilation process of the Dictionary. For
this reason, I came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to use AV for the purpose
of examining Webster’s biblical citations in his Dictionary.
Thus, finally, I determined to use AV for the detailed analysis of biblical citations in
both Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries. In applying this principle, I think I have
successfully shown how the lexicographers used biblical phrases and sentences,
respectively.
3: The Historical Background of Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries
3.1 Johnson’s Dictionary and Two Continental Dictionaries
3.1.1 Johnson’s Recognition of the Two Dictionaries
It has long been acknowledged that Johnson was strongly influenced by two continental
dictionaries when he engaged in compiling his Dictionary. They are the Vocabolario degli
Accademici della Crusca in Italy and the Dictionnaire de l’Académie Françoise in France;
the first edition of the former was published in 1612, and that of the latter in 1694. They are
both normative dictionaries which were compiled for the refinement of the languages in the
respective countries. They were severally compiled and issued by the nationally authorized
institutes indicated in their titles: the Accademici della Crusca (the Crusca Academy
hereafter) and the Académie Françoise (the French Academy hereafter). Before Johnson
began to compile his Dictionary, the Vocabolario had gone through four editions and the
Dictionnaire three. Concerning the arguments about the relations between Johnson’s
Dictionary and the two dictionaries, James Sledd and Gwin Kolb have summarized them as
follows:
The influence of the French Academy or the Accademia della Crusca is more likely to be
discussed in connection with Johnson’s Preface, when it is said that Johnson, like the academies,
hoped to fix his language; that Johnson realized, sooner than the academies, that a language cannot
be fixed; but that whatever the academies did for French and Italian, Johnson did for English.
(Sledd and Kolb 1955:2-3)
The Crusca Academy was established in 1582 and the French Academy in 1634. For men
of letters in England from the 1650’s to the 1750’s, the activities of the two institutes were
always an object of envy. Because of the drastic changes in English which had been
brought about during the Renaissance, they were generally in great anxiety about its future;
assuming the probability of further changes of the language, they feared that their works
might not be able to be read by posterity. It was natural for such people to have an ardent
wish to stabilize the language in its most desirable style. They recognized the activities of
the continental institutes as the best models to follow. In 1679, John Dryden stated as
follows in his “Epistle Dedicatory to the Right Honourable Robert Earl of Sunderland”
prefixed to Troilus and Cressida, making mention of the chief editor of the Dictionnaire,
Favre de Vaugelas:
Neither is one Vaugelas sufficient for such a work [the compilation of a normative dictionary]. ‘T
was the employment of the whole Academy for many years, for the perfect knowledge of a Tongue
was never attain’d by any single person. The Court, the Colledge and the Town, must be joyn’d in
it. And as our English is a Composition of the dead and living Tongues, there is requir’d a perfect
knowledge, not onely of the Greek and Latine, but of the Old German, the French, and the Italian;
and, to help all these, a conversation with those Authors of our own, who have written with the
fewest faults in prose and verse. (Dryden 1679:222)
43
In almost the same way, Swift remarked in 1712 in his Proposal for Correcting, Improving
and Ascertaining the English Tongue:
And the French, for these last Fifty Years, hath been polishing as much as it will bear, and appears
to be declining by the natural Inconstancy of that People, and the Affectation of some late Authors,
to introduce and multiply Cant Words [...]. But the English Tongue is not arrived to such a Degree
of Perfection, as to make us apprehend any Thoughts of its Decay [...]. (Swift 1712:14-15)
It is almost common knowledge that Johnson’s Dictionary was compiled in this historical
context. Johnson was also aware of the activities of the continental institutes, and paid close
attention to their dictionaries. In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson stated:
To furnish the academicians della Crusca with words of this kind [terms of art and manufacture], a
series of comedies called la Fiera, or the Fair, was professedly written by Buonaroti [...]. (Johnson
1755: n. pag. [8th (par. 79) in the “Preface”])
And, referring to Paolo Beni, an Italian grammarian who harshly censured the Vocabolario
in the 1610’s, Johnson continued:
[...] if the aggregated knowledge, and co-operating diligence of the Italian academicians, did not
secure them from the censure of Beni; if the embodied criticks of France, when fifty years had
been spent upon their work, were obliged to change its oeconomy, and give their second edition
another form, I may surely be contented without the praise of perfection [...]. (Johnson 1755: n.
How Beni criticized the Vocabolario, though this is not a primary concern here, is referred
to by Bruno Migliorini (1983:454).
In these statements of Johnson’s, though they partially reflect his doubts about the
effectiveness of the two institutes, it is clearly revealed that he not only knew the contents
of their dictionaries but also tried to examine how much influence they exerted on the
Italian and French languages. Then, in the “Preface” to his other dictionary, an abridgement
of the original edition issued in 1756, Johnson elucidated the point:
Having been long employed in the study and cultivation of the English language, I lately published
a dictionary like those compiled by the academies of Italy and France, for the use of such as aspire
to exactness of criticism or elegance of style. (Johnson 1756: n. pag. [1st (par. 1) in the “Preface”])
This statement signifies that Johnson perused the two continental dictionaries as essential
background materials for his Dictionary. This means that it is highly probable that the
dictionaries influenced Johnson’s Dictionary to a considerable extent. This probability, as
mentioned at the beginning of this section, has long been suggested by a number of
authorities. In this regard, William Wimsatt (1959:67) has even claimed “We are only
‘wise’ if we try to see Johnson’s Dictionary in an international perspective and to assimilate
it as far as possible to Italian and French models”. Strangely, however, the contents of
Johnson’s Dictionary and those of the two continental dictionaries have hardly been
compared until today.
44
3.1.2 Methods for Comparing the Dictionaries
The comparison of the three dictionaries will be made in the following sub-sections. The
purpose of this task is not to make exhaustive analysis of the dictionaries but to obtain
fundamental knowledge about Johnson's indebtedness to the two continental dictionaries in
respect of the formulation of the entry and the provision of verbal examples in relation to
grammatical information. The scope of the analysis will be mostly limited to the entries on
take (v.a.) in Johnson’s Dictionary, tenere in the Vocabolario and prendre in the
Dictionnaire. The reason why I selected these entries is that take, tenere and prendre are
used quite frequently in English, Italian and French, respectively, and that the words are in
common that they are inflected irregularly. It can be said, therefore, that the analysis of the
entries is useful to obtain concise knowledge about how the respective dictionaries treated
the usage of the languages. Through the analysis, it is also expected that the basic structure
of entries in Johnson’s Dictionary will be clarified. Based on this recognition, I will
observe the division of entries and the provision of verbal examples and the information on
verbal inflections in the dictionaries through the selected entries. However, for the
knowledge of how the three dictionaries provide information on verbal inflections, the
relevant entries and sub-entries will also be referred to when the necessity arises.
In addition to the scope of analysis, a few remarks have to be made about my selection
of the editions of the two continental dictionaries. As to the Vocabolario, I will select the
first edition published in 1612. This is because the fourth edition (1738), which Johnson is
thought to have referred to, was not available to me. However, according to Bruno
Migliorini’s (1983:366-67, 450-53, 510 and 516) analysis, the differences between the first
edition and the fourth of the Vocabolario are almost limited to the spheres of augmentation
of entry-words and the reduction of citations; if the result of his analysis is correct, the use
of the first edition for the current purpose will not cause a problem. As for the Dictionnaire,
the third edition (1740), which had been published just before Johnson began to compile his
Dictionary, will be used.
3.1.3 Ways of Dividing Entries
As to the Vocabolario, a flag sign is used for the purpose of dividing an entry. In the entry
on tenere, 10 sub-entries are provided at first for the explanation of the senses of tenere,
flag signs being placed at the beginning of the second sub-entry and after; the sign is not
placed for the first sub-entry. For instance, the first 3 sub-entries in the entry severally
begin as follows:
Propriamente strignere in maniera con mano, che quel che si strigne non possa ne suggir, ne cadere.
[...] ¶ Propriamente strignere in maniera con mano, che quel che si strigne non possa ne fuggir, ne
cadere. [...] ¶ In uece di possed possedére, auere in sua podesta.
This example also shows that the sub-entries in the Vocabolario successively continue one
after another, not starting at the beginnings of lines. Then, following the explanation of the
senses of tenere, 50 other sub-entries are provided for idioms with the use of the same flag
sign. These 50 sub-entries begin immediately after the group of sub-entries on the senses of
45
the entry-word without a line feed. In the concrete, sub-entries on idioms tener nascoso,
tenere credenza, tener seco, etc. follow in this order after sub-entries provided to indicate
the senses of tenere as shown below:
M M
Permantenersi, [...]. non s’arrendere. [...] M
Tener nascoso: celare, nascondere. [...] Tenere
M
credenza: tener segreto, non manifestare, non-ridire quello, che t’é detto in considenza. [...]
Tener seco. Far dimorare appresso di se. Permantenersi, [...].
Here again, each sub-entry does not start at the beginning of a line, either.
Since the Vocabolario is a dictionary published at the beginning of the seventeenth
century, it can hardly be said that it was compiled on the basis of fully matured
lexicographic principles. Still, however, it is just conceivable that Johnson was inspired by
the way entries were divided in the Vocabolario. If we imagine an entry in which numbers
replace flag signs, and each sub-entry starts at the beginning of a line, the structure of the
entry is the type adopted in Johnson’s Dictionary. In Johnson’s case, he firstly provided 66
sub-entries in the entry on take to explain the senses of take. The first two sub-entries are
as follows:
1. To receive what is offered.

2. To seize what is not given.
Then, following the remaining 64 sub-entries for the explanation of the senses of take, 47
sub-entries on relevant idioms are provided. This begins with the number following 66 like
this:
67. To TAKE away. To deprive of.

68. To TAKE away. To set aside; to remove.
69. To TAKE care. To be careful; to be solicitous for; to superintend.
This can be regarded as traces of the successively arranged sub-entries in the Vocabolario.
Concerning the Dictionnaire, its provision of sub-entries is enormously complicated. In
this dictionary, neither signs nor numbers are used to indicate sub-entries. At the beginning
of the entry on prendre, there is a part in which general senses and usage of prendre are
explained. Following this part, 20 items are arranged preceded by the word ‘PRENDRE’ in
small capitals. It may be possible to regard these items as sub-entries, but each of the items
is further divided by the italicized word ‘PRENDRE’. Then, in these sub-items, places for
idioms are occasionally inserted. The skeleton of the structure of the first item is as follows:
PRENDRE / Prendre à force / Prendre possession / Prendre / Prendre / Prendre
This is in no sense like the structure adopted in Johnson’s Dictionary. As far as the way of
dividing entries is concerned, it can hardly be said that the Dictionnaire exerted influence
on Johnson’s Dictionary.
46
3.1.4 Ways of Supplying Verbal Examples
The three dictionaries treated here have commonality in respect of an abundance of verbal
examples. As to the Vocabolario, all verbal examples are extracts from texts; that is, they
are citations. The entry on tenere in the dictionary contains 94 citations; these citations are
allocated in 50 sub-entries out of 60 in the entry. Most of the citations are from literary
works; 52 from Giovanni Boccacio, 14 from Novelle Antiche, 13 from Giovanni Villani,
and 15 from other sources. Citations in the Vocabolario are featured by the addition of
minute indications of sources. Not only names of authors and titles but also numbers of
relevant chapters and sections of works are usually indicated. The indications are placed at
the beginnings of citations. Examples are:
Bocc.g.2.p.3. Se io ho ben riguardato alle maniere da Pampinea tenute.

Nou. ant. 35.8. Il Re gli chiamò, e que’, quando il uidero, tennersi.
In addition to such minute indications, the “Tavola dell’ Abbreviatvre”, the table of
abbreviations, is attached to the dictionary. This table gives particulars about the sources of
citations. For instance, the table explains the sources as follows, referring to abbreviations
in the body of the dictionary:
Bocc.lett. / Boccaccio lettera / Lettera del Boccacio à M. Pino de’ Rossi. stamp.
(trans. Bocc.lett. / Boccaccio’s Letters / The Letters of Boccacio addressed to M. Pino:
Published by Rossi.)
Dan.In.c.1. / Dante nell’ Inferno, canto primo / Poema, o vero la diuina Commedia di Dante
Alighieri, corrette dagli Accademici della Crusca. Stamp. in Firenze in Ottauo.
(trans. Dan.In.c.1 / the first canto in Dante’s “Inferno” / originally a poem of the Divine
Comedy of Dante Alighieri. Revised by the Accademici della Crusca: Published in Firenze in
octavo.)
In this way, no less than 600 sources of citations are indicated in detail in the table. This
table, accompanied by the indications of sources given in the body of the dictionary, clearly
shows how much importance the editors of the Vocabolario attached to citations from
literary works. In the Vocabolario, invented examples are basically not supplied, though it
cannot be denied that there is a possibility that the editors changed some original phrases
and sentences.
When verbal examples in the entry on tenere in Vocabolario are compared with those in
the entry on take in Johnson’s Dictionary, it becomes found that the latter are larger in
number than the former. In the entry on take, Johnson allocated as many as 180 citations
even in its limited sphere of 66 sub-entries provided for the explanation of the senses of
take; the citations are dispersed throughout the sub-entries. In respect of the indications of
sources, however, Johnson’s Dictionary hardly bears comparison with the Vocabolario.
Johnson frequently changed the ways of abbreviating names of authors and titles of works.
No consistent rule is observable there. He sometimes gave indications as “Waller.”,
“Dryden.” and “Shakespeare’s Hamlet.”, and sometimes as “Shak.”, “Sh.” and “Dryd.”
This is also pointed out by Rüdiger Schreyer. He has said the following:
47
Frequently there is no one-to-one relationship between a string and its referent. Different strings
may refer, for instance, to the same author or identical strings to different authors. Pope is referred
to as Po., Pop., Pope, or Pope’s, sometimes followed by a title, sometimes not. Shakespeare is
referred to by the strings Sh., Sha., Shak., Shake., Shakes, Shakesp., Shakespeare, Shakespeare’s
[...]. (Schreyer 2000:63)
In addition to this inconsistent practice, Johnson did not provide a table equivalent to the
“Tavola dell’ Abbreviatvre” in the Vocabolario. The only exception is the case of biblical
citations; Johnson almost always indicated their relevant chapters and sections of the Bible,
as “Jer. xxxv.17.” and “Deut. xxiv.6.”. In this way, citations in the Vocabolario differ from
those in Johnson’s Dictionary in respect of quantity and indications of sources. Still, it can
safely be said that Johnson basically tried to adopt the way the editors of the Vocabolario
had adopted in supplying their citations.
In contrast to the Vocabolario and Johnson’s Dictionary, not a single citation was
supplied in the Dictionnaire. The Dictionnaire certainly contains an abundance of verbal
examples, but they appear to be entirely invented ones. In a sense, the verbal examples in
the Dictionnaire are almost countless, and may be regarded as by far the largest in number
among the three dictionaries. However, this can be said on condition that such phrases as
shown in the following passages are included in the count:
On dit, Prendre son parti, pour dire, Se résoudre, se décider, choisir un moyen, un expedient dans
une affaire difficile & doute use.
On dit, qu’Un cheval prend le mors aux dents, pour dire, qu’il s’emporte & qu’on ne peut le retenir.
These passages from the entry on prendre also show another aspect of verbal examples in
the Dictionnaire; the examples are often paraphrased in other expressions. This
combination of the two, an invented example and its paraphrase(s), is supplied here and
there in the dictionary. Though not so frequently as the editors of the Dictionnaire, Johnson
also supplied invented examples, paraphrasing them in other expressions. He did this
mainly to provide grammatical information, which will be discussed in Section 8.1.3. It
may possibly be said that he followed the precedent of the Dictionnaire in supplying his
invented examples in that way.
3.1.5 Information on Verbal Inflections in the Dictionaries
The analysis in this sub-section concerns the provision of grammatical information on verbs
of highest frequency in the three dictionaries. In the Vocabolario, information on verbal
inflections is not provided at all. Firstly, in the entry on tenere, no relevant explanation is
made. Secondly, not a single entry and sub-entry on the inflected forms of the verb, such as
tèngo, tiènni, terrò and tènga, is provided in the dictionary. For this reason, the
Vocabolario can be regarded as a literary dictionary in essence, having little relevance to
the grammar of the language.
In contrast to the Vocabolario, Johnson’s Dictionary goes into fair detail about verbal
inflections. The entry on take begins thus: “preterite took, part. pass. taken, sometimes
took”. In addition to this information, Johnson’s Dictionary also contains the entries on the
48
words taken and took. Johnson’s treatment of these inflected forms will be analysed in
detail in Section 5.2 through the comparison with Webster’s. Currently, it will be sufficient
to point out that in these entries Johnson gave a grammatical account about the inflected
forms and sometimes illustrated the usage of the words with citations.
As to the Dictionnaire, the entry on prendre provides the following paradigm:
Je prends, tu prends, il prend, nous prenons, vous prenez, ils prennent. Je prenois. J’ai pris. Je
prendrai. Prends, prenez. Que je prenne. Que je prisse. Je prendrois, &c.
This paradigm illustrates the editors’ concern about verbal inflections. Among the inflected
forms shown in the paradigm, the editors treated pris separately as follows:
PRIS, ISE. part. pass. Il a presque toutes les significations de son verbe. Une ville prise. Un posson
pris dans les filets. Un homme pris de vin. [...] Au jeu du Lansquenet, on dit, qu’Un homme est
pris, Quand sa carte a été faite. Il avoit carte double & il a été pris le premier, il a été le premier
pris.
The description about pris consists of 18 lines, in which 13 verbal examples are included; 4
among the 13 are paraphrased in other expressions. This, however, does not mean that an
entry was provided for pris. This word is treated in the entry on prendre.
It is very probable that Johnson was stimulated by the Dictionnaire in his treatment of
verbal inflections. In the English dictionaries before Johnson, inflected forms of verbs had
hardly been treated. Johnson can be said to have developed the lexicographical technique
seen in the Dictionnaire in this respect by providing entries on inflected forms of verbs and
treating them more minutely than the editors of the dictionary.
Until today, the historical background of Johnson’s Dictionary has been mainly observed
from the viewpoint of the history of English lexicography. Many authorities have exerted
themselves to clarify the historical significance of the Dictionary from this viewpoint,
revealing its various notable aspects. However, as the saying goes, we cannot see the forest
for the trees. Such an enormous work as Johnson’s Dictionary is, its total picture will not be
able to be seen only from such a viewpoint. A lot of historical literature illustrates that
Johnson was strongly conscious of the two continental dictionaries. In spite of this situation,
however, the body of his Dictionary has rarely been collated with the bodies of the two
dictionaries. Since Johnson compiled the Dictionary in the historical context that men of
letters were generally envious of the two dictionaries, the truest historical background of his
Dictionary will not be clarified without such collation.
Though the focus of my attention in this section is extremely limited, it may safely be
said that Johnson was considerably influenced by the two continental dictionaries within
the range of entries on verbs of highest frequency and those on their inflected forms.
Concerning the former, especially, they are entries in which Johnson made exertions
differently from his preceding English lexicographers; I (Miyoshi 1992:601-606) have once
discussed that J. K. (John Kersey?) listed verbs of high frequency and their inflected forms
49
in his New English Dictionary (1702), but he did not expound on any of them. In respect of
the basic arrangement of sub-entries in entries on verbs of highest frequency, Johnson can
be claimed to have imitated the Vocabolario. No trace of his imitation of the Dictionnaire
can be seen in this respect. As to the way of supplying verbal examples, the Vocabolario
also exerted considerable influence on him, but the possibility of the Dictionnaire’s
influence cannot totally be denied. With regard to the treatment of verbal inflections, it can
be said that Johnson developed the way used in the Dictionnaire.
The analysis made in this section indicates that Johnson was considerably conscious of
the provision of grammatical information. This strongly supports the probability that he
frequently supplied verbal examples, one of the most notable characteristics in the
Dictionary, to illustrate grammar and usage of the language.
3.2 Johnson’s Dictionary and Priestley’s Grammars
3.2.1 Three Perspectives on Johnson’s Treatment of English Grammar
Perspectives are varied among authorities about Johnson’s treatment of English grammar in
his Dictionary. James Sledd and Gwin Kolb are critical of Johnson in this respect. They
(1955:177) have claimed that “As a linguistic theorist [...] and as a grammarian, Johnson
can hardly claim high rank”. This claim is based on their analysis of Johnson’s “Grammar
of the English Tongue” attached to the Dictionary. The same authorities (1955:12) have
also said that the material is not worth much discussion. No one will be able to protect
Johnson from their censure. Actually, Johnson’s “Grammar” is carelessly written, and the
section on syntax in it consists of no more than 18 lines.
Differently from Sledd and Kolb, Tetsuro Hayashi has not flatly disapproved of
Johnson’s treatment of English grammar. With the recognition that Johnson’s Dictionary
was full of grammatical information, Hayashi (1978:95) has claimed that “As one of the
prerequisites of a grammatical dictionary, Johnson evidently held the idea that dictionary
should give importance to commonness and generality of words and phrasal expressions”.
Hayashi’s claim is based on the following statement of Johnson’s in the “Preface” to his
Dictionary:
The words, thus selected and disposed, are grammatically considered: they are referred to the
different parts of speech; traced, when they are irregularly inflected, through their various
terminations; and illustrated by observations, not indeed of great or striking importance, separately
considered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, and hitherto neglected or forgotten by
English grammarians. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 42) in the “Preface”])
De Witt Starnes and Gertrude Noyes observed the body of the Dictionary, remarking as
follows:
Special classifications of words [...] are indicated with more or less consistency [...] and grammar
is treated both in an introductory section and throughout the word list. (Starnes and Noyes
1948:195)
50
Though the legitimacy of this statement is yet to be examined, it sounds more convincing
than Sledd and Kolb’s and Hayashi’s statements because of the extensive scope of their
investigation.
3.2.2 Johnson and Two Leading Grammarians in the Eighteenth Century
Strangely, however, Johnson’s treatment of English grammar has hardly been observed in
the context of the history of English grammar. Johnson was a lexicographer at a time when
work on the grammar of the language began to make significant progress. Sterling Leonard
has correctly depicted the situation as follows:
Whereas fewer than fifty writings on grammar, rhetoric, criticism, and linguistic theory have been
listed for the first half of the eighteenth century, and still fewer for all the period before 1600, the
publications in the period 1750-1800 exceeded two hundred titles. (Leonard 1962:12)
As he compiled his Dictionary at that time, Johnson cannot be assumed to have been a
lexicographer isolated from the trend. However, this is a matter to which little attention has
been paid. Even Starnes and Noyes, though extensively perusing the grammatical aspects of
Johnson’s Dictionary as mentioned above, seem to have been almost indifferent to the
historical context.
Among other eighteenth-century grammarians, Robert Lowth and Joseph Priestley are
known as the forerunners of modern English grammarians. The former formulated various
rules for the language from a prescriptive viewpoint, basing himself on the ‘reason’ which
was the spirit of the time. The latter, who was basically descriptive, laid special emphasis
on the use of the language. This difference between the two grammarians is reflected in the
following passages from their grammars:
Lowth, A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762):

It is with reason expected of every person of a liberal education, and much more it is indispensably
required of every one who undertakes to inform or entertain the public, that he should be able to
express himself with propriety and accuracy. (Lowth 1762:viii-ix)
Priestley, The Rudiments of English Grammar, 1st edition (1761):

Language is a method of conveying our ideas to the minds of other persons; and the grammar of
any language is a collection of observations on the structure of it, and a system of rules for the
proper use of it. (Priestley 1761:19)
To be more specific, Priestley criticized Lowth as follows in his second edition of the
Rudiments (1769):
Some persons, however, use the singular of this word [means], and would say, lest this mean
should fail, and Dr. Lowth pleads for it; but custom has so formed our ears, that they do not easily
admit this form of the word, notwithstanding it is more agreeable to the general analogy of the
language. (Priestley 1769:61)
Dr. Lowth says, that grammar requires us to say, Whom do you think me to be? But in
conversation we always hear, Who do you think me to be? (Priestley 1769:85)
51
In spite of this difference, however, when the works of the two grammarians are collated
with Johnson’s Dictionary, respectively, it becomes obvious that both figures were strongly
influenced by the Dictionary, thus revealing Johnson’s considerable contribution to the
development of English grammar. Daisuke Nagashima is one of a few authorities who
investigated Johnson’s Dictionary in relation to the history of English grammar. Based on
this investigation, he (1983:241-247) has discussed the relations between the Dictionary
and Lowth’s Short Introduction. According to Nagashima (1983:244), Lowth systematized
Johnson’s grammatical comments in the body of his Dictionary. In order to justify this
opinion, Nagashima (1983:241-244) has exemplified how Lowth introduced the contents of
Johnson’s usage notes into his Short Introduction. Nagashima (1983:243-244) has also
proved that Lowth often made use of Johnson’s citations in his Dictionary, claiming that
Johnson’s Dictionary was instrumental in bringing about a turning point in the history of
English grammar. Whether Nagashima’s investigation of Johnson’s Dictionary and
Lowth’s grammar has been sufficient or not to justify such a claim, it is to his credit that he
has discussed Johnson’s Dictionary in the historical context of the development of English
grammar. In a sense, however, it was natural for Lowth to refer to Johnson’s Dictionary
because both aimed to stabilize the usage of English. In the following sub-sections, I will
aim to elucidate how Johnson’s Dictionary exerted influence on Priestley whose view of
English grammar was essentially opposed to Johnson’s; this analysis is an extension of the
one which I published in 1984 and 1987 and was partially introduced into one of
Nagashima’s works (1988:132-140).
3.2.3 A Change in Priestley’s Opinion about Johnson’s Dictionary
As discussed in the previous section, Priestley published his first edition of the Rudiments
in 1761. This is his first grammar. In this edition, he referred to Johnson’s Dictionary as
follows:
It is not denied that use hath been made of other Grammars, and particularly of Mr. Johnson’s in
compiling this: But it is apprehended, that there is so much that is properly original, both in the
materials and the disposition of them in this, as is more than sufficient to clear a work of such a
nature from the charge of plagiarism. (Priestley 1761:iv)
It is easily seen that Priestley did not name Johnson in a positive manner here; he even
seems to have referred to Johnson merely to avoid the censure of plagiarism. This shows
that Priestley at this stage did not highly appreciate Johnson’s knowledge of English
grammar. In this situation, it is virtually inconceivable that Johnson’s Dictionary exerted
noteworthy influence on Priestley.
However, Priestley’s opinion about Johnson marked a significant change less than two
years after that. In 1762, Priestley published his second grammar, A Course of Lectures on
the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. At the beginning of this work, Priestley
bestowed the highest eulogy on Johnson’s Dictionary. He remarked:
52
That immense and valuable performance of Mr. Johnson’s contains an account of almost all the
senses in which all the words of the English language are used: and it is very possible, from little
more than the examples he hath given from our best writers of the use of every word in every
sense, to compose a grammar of all the varieties of manner in which words are used, both as to
their inflection and disposition, which, together with the dictionary, would be a complete system
of our language as now used. (Priestley 1762:218)
This time, Johnson’s Dictionary was an indispensable reference book for Priestley to
develop his view of English grammar. It is almost certain that this notable change of
Priestley’s opinion about Johnson was brought about by the fact that his concern shifted
from one part of Johnson’s Dictionary to the other. Evidently, the passage from the Course
of Lectures above refers to the body of Johnson’s Dictionary. At the stage of the first
edition of the Rudiments, Priestley is conjectured to have read only Johnson’s “Grammar”
attached to his Dictionary; as mentioned at the beginning of this section, Johnson’s
“Grammar” is far from perfect.
In 1769, Priestley published his second edition of the Rudiments. In the preface to this
edition, Priestley stated:
I must not conclude this preface, without making my acknowledgements to Mr. Johnson, whose
admirable dictionary has been of the greatest use to me in the study of our language. It is a pity he
had not formed as just, and as extensive an idea of English grammar. (Priestley 1769:18)
After observing Priestley’s change in his opinion about Johnson, it becomes evident that the
first sentence in this passage refers to the body of Johnson’s Dictionary and the second
sentence to the “Grammar” attached to the Dictionary; Priestley reviewed each of them
severally, and it is not that he said that Johnson’s Dictionary was totally deficient in
grammatical information. However, James Sledd and Gwin Kolb (1955:178) have quoted
the very same passage, trying to prove their own claim as follows:
The inferiority of Johnson the grammarian to Johnson the lexicographer was to become almost a
commonplace. As Priestley said, moreover, the weakness of Johnson’s grammar was cause for real
regret; for Johnson might have commanded public attention at the very moment when the study of
English was becoming scholastically respectable. (Sledd and Kolb 1955:178)
In this claim, Sledd and Kolb have manifestly associated the second sentence in Priestley’s
passage with Johnson’s knowledge about English grammar. It can hardly be thought that
Sledd and Kolb were aware of the change in Priestley’s opinion about Johnson.
3.2.4 The Influence of Johnson’s Dictionary on Priestley
In the second edition of his Rudiments, Priestley referred to Johnson 5 times in total in
discussing usage in the language; he took objection to Johnson 2 times and approved of him
3 times. Specifically, Priestley criticized Johnson to clarify his unique view of a
conjunctive form and the use of lesser. As to the former, Priestley (1769:90) said, “Mr.
Johnson assigns no conjunctive form to the preter tense; but the analogy of the language
seems to require that both the tenses be put upon a level in this respect”; regrettably, I have
53
not been able to find Johnson’s words which Priestley referred to here. As to the latter,
Priestley stated:
The word lesser, though condemned by Mr. Johnson, and other English grammarians, is often used
by good writers. The greater number frequently fly before the lesser. Smollett’s Voltaire, vol. 1. p.
172. The kings of France were the chief of several greater vassals by whom they were very ill
obeyed, and of a greater number of lesser ones. Ib. [ibid.] vol. 6. p. 172. (Priestley 1769:67)
Johnson’s opinion about the word is described in the body of his Dictionary. In the entry on
lesser, Johnson said:
A barbarous corruption of less, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparatives in
er; afterwards adopted by poets, and then by writers of prose.
Concerning lesser, Johnson was not the only one who opposed the use of the word. Sterling
Leonard (1962:113 and 267) has pointed out that Lowth was also critical about the word,
showing the fact that Lowth wholly approved of Johnson’s opinion quoted above. However,
for the purpose of clarifying his view of lesser, as well as that of a conjunctive form,
Priestley named none other than Johnson. This situation signifies that Priestley often
regarded Johnson as a representative of a group of grammarians whose view of the word
was opposite to his.
With regard to Priestley’s approval of Johnson’s opinions, it concerns three points: the
use of a grammatical term, syllables and the usage of should. I will discuss each of the
points below in this order.
Firstly, as to the use of a grammatical term, Priestley gave preference to Johnson’s
oblique case over Lowth’s objective case as follows:
I prefer the term oblique case of Dr. Johnson to objective case, which Dr. Lowth uses. [...] Now
the objective case can only stand for the accusative, in which the object of an affirmative sentence
is put; but oblique comprehends other relations, and other cases, in which this form of the pronoun
is used [...]. (Priestley 1769:82)
As Priestley suggested, Johnson usually used the term oblique case in his Dictionary.
Examples are:
HER. pron. 2.: The oblique case of she.

HERSELF. pronoun.: The female personal pronoun, in the oblique cases reciprocal.
HIMSELF. pron. 3.: In the oblique cases it has a reciprocal signification.
ME. 1.: The oblique case of I.
Secondly, on the point of syllables, Priestley remarked:
There are some Disyllables which would not admit the termination [er] or [est] without a
harshness in the pronunciation. It is, therefore, usual to compare them in the same manner as
Polysyllables, without any change of termination. Of these, Mr. Johnson has given us the
following enumeration; viz. such as terminate in,
some, as fulsome. ive, as massive.
ful, as careful. dy, as woody.
54
ing, as trifling. fy, as puffy.

ous, as porous. ky, as rocky; except lucky.
less, as careless.
ed, as wretched. my, as roomy.
id, as candid. py, as ropy; except happy.
ent, as recent.
ain, as certain. ry, as hoary.
(Priestley 1769:68)
Priestley here referred to the following part of Johnson’s “Grammar”:
Dissyllables are seldom compared if they terminate in some, as fulsome, toilsome; in ful, as careful,
spleenful, dreadful; in ing, as trifling, charming; in ous, as porous; in less, as careless, harmless; in
ed, as wretched; in id, as candid; in al, as mortal; in ent, as recent, fervent; in ain, as certain; in ive,
as missive; in dy, as woody; in fy, as puffy; in ky, as rocky, except lucky; in my, as roomy; in ny as
skinny; in py, as ropy, except happy; in ry, as hoary. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th in the
“Grammar”])
Thirdly, Priestley accepted Johnson’s opinion on the usage of should as follows:
The auxiliary verb shall reverts to its original signification in its conditional form, when if, or any
other particle expressing uncertainty, is prefixed to it. I should go, means I ought to go; but if I
should go, means if it happens that I go. This observation is Mr. Johnson’s. (Priestley 1769:97)
Here, Priestley is assumed to have referred to the entry relevant to the word in Johnson’s
Dictionary. In the entry on should, Johnson had explained the usage of the word as
follows:
I SHOULD go. It is my business or duty to go.

If I SHOULD go. If it happens that I go.
Priestley’s acceptance of Johnson’s opinion indicates that Johnson’s Dictionary was highly
important for Priestley to formulate his view of English grammar. In addition to the point,
there was at least one time when Priestley incorporated Johnson’s opinion without making
mention of his name. In the entry on obey (v.a.) in his Dictionary, Johnson explained the
use of to before obey as follows, quoting from the Bible and John Milton.
‘To OBEY. v.a. 2.’:

It had formerly sometimes to before the person obeyed, which Addison has mentioned as one of
Milton’s latinisms; but it is frequent in old writers; when we borrowed the French word we
borrowed the syntax, obeir au roi.
His servants ye are, to whom ye obey. Rom. vi. 16.
Nor did they not perceive the evil plight
In which thy were, or the fierce pains not feel,
Yet to their general’s voice they soon obey’d. Milton.
This opinion of Johnson’s was incorporated into Priestley’s second edition of the
Rudiments together with the citations like this:
55
Agreeably to the Latin and French idioms, the preposition to is sometimes used in conjunction
with such words as, in those languages, govern the dative case; but this construction does not seem
to suit the English language. His servants ye are, to whom ye obey. Romans. And to their general’s
vice thy soon obeyed. Milton. (Priestley 1769:116)
At the time when ‘reason’ was highly valued, Priestley’s view of English grammar was
inevitably obscured by Lowth’s. Nowadays, however, Priestley is generally regarded as a
forerunner of descriptive grammarians. Albert Baugh has commented on Priestley as
follows:
One must come down almost to our own day to find an attitude so tolerant and so liberal. And the
doctrine of usage is so fundamental to all sound discussion of linguistic matters that it is important
to recognize the man in whom it first found real expression. (Baugh 2002:285)
Leonard also has this to say:
Priestley is undoubtedly the first writer in English, and apparently the only one in the eighteenth
century, to take a clear and reasonably consistent view of usage. (Leonard 1962:142)
It is surely worth noting that such a leading grammarian formulated his theory, consulting
Johnson’s Dictionary as an indispensable reference book.
3.3 Webster’s Dictionary and American Education
3.3.1 The Prevailing Attitudes to the Historical Background of Webster’s Dictionary
It has been a widely held opinion among authorities on Webster that he compiled his
Dictionary against the backdrop of fiery anti-English sentiment of the American people
right after American Independence. As I pointed out at the end of Section 1.3, this view is
thought to have seriously obscured the linguistic aspects of the Dictionary and the historical
significance of his verbal examples, causing problems which should not be left neglected.
The authorities who have championed such a perspective are large in number. To cite a few
instances, James Murray (1900:43) claimed in 1900 that Webster “was fired with the idea
that America ought to have a dictionary of its own form of English, independent of British
usage”. Kemp Malone (1925:28) stated that “His labors [Webster’s tasks for compiling his
Dictionary] were destined to extend over more than twenty years, but never once did he
lose sight of this patriotic purpose”. Albert Baugh (2002:369) remarked that “Webster was
a patriot who carried his sentiment from questions of political and social organization over
into matters of language”. It has been usual for such authorities to refer to the following
passage from the “Preface” to Webster’s Dictionary as the basis of their assertion:
56
It is not only important, but, in a degree necessary, that the people of this country, should have an
American Dictionary of the English Language; for, although the body of the language is the same
as in England, and it is desirable to perpetuate that sameness, yet some differences must exist.
Language is the expression of ideas; and if the people of one country cannot preserve an identity of
ideas, they cannot retain an identity of language. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [1st (par. 7) in the
“Preface”])
Additionally, it has apparently been advantageous for them that the title of Webster’s
Dictionary is adorned with the word ‘American’: An American Dictionary of the English
Language. Baugh (2002:369) claimed that “By stressing American usage [...] he [Webster]
contrived in large measure to justify the title of his work”.
3.3.2 The Historical Facts against the Prevailing Perspective
As a matter of fact, however, neither the passage from the “Preface” quoted above nor the
title of Webster’s Dictionary is sufficient to prove the correctness of their perspective. A
few authorities have taken objection to the prevailing perspective based on convincing
historical facts. Richard Rollins is one of them. He has pointed out Webster’s pro-British
attitude:
When the second American edition was published in 1841, he sent a copy to Queen Victoria.
Significantly, he told the person carrying it to her that “our common language is one of the ties
that bind the two nations together; I hope the works I have executed will manifest to the British
nation that the Americans are not willing to suffer it to degenerate on this side of the Atlantic.”
(Rollins 1980:127)
The fact that Rollins has mentioned here suggests the possibility that the passage from the
“Preface” can be interpreted in a different way. Referring to the differences between
Webster’s Dictionary and his preparatory work for it, the Compendious Dictionary of the
English Language (1806), Rollins has made the following comments:
Webster himself indicated that his view had changed immensely. “It is not only important, but, in
a degree necessary,” he said in the opening pages, “that the people of this country, should have an
American Dictionary of the English language.” Notice that he did not advocate the development
of a new language, or even a new dialect, separate and distinct from that spoken in England.
Instead, he perceived himself to be writing merely an American dictionary of the English language,
which is of course a very different thing from creating a whole new language. And he further
explained his position, noting that the body of the language was basically the same as that of
England. He added a significant statement: “it is desirable to perpetuate that sameness.” [...] Half
a century earlier he had despised England and all that it stood for. Now he told the queen that he
hoped his dictionary might furnish evidence that the “genuine descendants of English ancestors
born on the west of the Atlantic, have not forgotten either the land or the language of their
fathers.” (Rollins 1980:126-127)
Rollins’s interpretation of the passage can be regarded as coinciding with the contents of
Webster’s message to Queen Victoria. The collation of a passage from the preface to
57
Webster’s preparatory work for that to his Dictionary reveals how Webster’s patriotism had
changed by 1828, thus proving the correctness of Rollins’s perspective:
the Compendious Dictionary:

From a different class of men, if such are to be found, whose criticisms would sink the literature of
this country, even lower than the distorted representations of foreign reviewers; whose veneration
for trans-atlantic authors leads them to hold American writers in unmerited contempt; from such
men I neither expect nor solicit favor. Men who take pains to find and to exhibit to the world,
proofs of our national inferiority in talents and acquirements, are certainly not destined to decide
the ultimate fate of this performance. (Webster 1806:xxiii)
the American Dictionary:

I do not indeed expect to add celebrity to the names of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay,
Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull, Hamilton, Belknap, Ames, Mason, Kent,
Hare, Silliman, Cleaveland, Walsh, Irving, and many other Americans distinguished by their
writings or by their science; but it is with pride and satisfaction, that I can place them, as
authorities, on the same page with those of Boyle, Hooker, Milton, Dryden, Addison, Ray, Milner,
Cowper, Davy, Thomson and Jameson. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [2nd (par. 13) in the “Preface”])
The collation of the two passages above clearly illustrates that Webster’s patriotism became
moderated after 1806. What is significant about Rollins is that he was aware of the change
in Webster’s thought. This is a point which has hardly been reflected in the accounts of the
authorities of the prevailing perspective. Malone (1925:26-30) has quoted various passages
from Webster’s writings with the attempt to prove the relations between his anti-English
sentiment and the Dictionary, but most of the writings were those in and before 1806.
As to the title of the Dictionary, Allen Read, who also recognized the change in
Webster’s thought similarly to Rollins, has pointed out a notable fact:
Webster’s linguistic outlook continually underwent an evolution throughout his long life, in
general in the direction of conservatism. It is fascinating to watch the changes as they gradually
took place. They are typified by the alteration of the title of his great dictionary. On June 4, 1800,
he announced that he had in hand ‘A Dictionary of the American Language’, but when it was
completed, twenty-eight years later, it bore the title AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE. (Read 1986a:199)
When observed thus, Webster can hardly be thought to have compiled his Dictionary
motivated by anti-English sentiment; Webster’s Dictionary can no longer be regarded as a
product of the political patriotism caused by American Independence.
3.3.3 American Aspects of Webster’s Dictionary
The prevailing perspective described in the previous section further implies that Webster
compiled his Dictionary with the intention of developing an American English independent
of British English. However, it has to be noted that Webster’s Dictionary acquired
popularity in England rather than in America. Richard Rollins has pointed out the following
fact:
58
The American Dictionary was perfectly acceptable in England. The first edition of 2,500 copies
was quickly followed by an English edition of 3,000 [...]. When his publisher went bankrupt,
copies of the English edition were sold without change in America. (Rollins 1980: 126-27)
This historical fact suggests that Webster’s Dictionary was useful in England for the study
of English and that Webster did not make much effort to develop the American style of
English by compiling his Dictionary. To what extent, however, is Webster’s Dictionary
American? One way to find an answer to this question is to analyse Webster’s treatment of
Americanisms. However, this is a matter which has often caused controversy. On the one
hand, some authorities have assumed that Webster’s Dictionary contains a considerable
number of Americanisms. For example, Morton Benson (1986:7) has claimed that “One
noteworthy feature of Webster’s work was his inclusion of many Americanisms, British
dictionaries having paid scant attention to such forms”. Saying thus, Benson (1986:7) cited
some examples of Americanisms in Webster’s Dictionary: caribou, hickory, moccasin,
moose, squash, succotash, tomahawk and wigwam. Herbert Morton (1994:44) also believed
that Webster made efforts to include Americanisms in his Dictionary: “Webster took pride
in the introduction of Americanisms – new words and new senses of old words that had
arisen to meet the language needs of the new nation”. On the other hand, some authorities
have been dubious of Webster’s treatment of Americanisms. Joseph Friend (1967:49) has
asserted, “An examination of the Americanisms included in the book [Webster’s
Dictionary] shows that [...] his coverage is very far from thorough, and his omissions are
sometimes hard to account for”. Joseph Reed (1962:101) has remarked that “There were
few genuine Americanisms” in Webster’s Dictionary.
Whether Americanisms in Webster’s Dictionary are large or small in number depends on
the subjectivity of the viewers. Additionally, the definite number of Americanisms in
Webster’s Dictionary is yet to be determined. For these reasons, if we want to know
something about Webster’s collection of the Americanisms, it becomes necessary to read
his own statements concerning the point. Again, however, there is a problem here. In the
“Preface” to his Dictionary, Webster stated:
A great number of words in our language require to be defined in a phraseology accommodated to

the condition and institutions of the people in these states, and the people of England must look to
an American Dictionary for a correct understanding of such terms. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [2nd
(par. 9) in the “Preface”])
In this passage, Webster clearly emphasized the necessity for the treatment of
Americanisms. He, on the other hand, said in the “Introduction” to the Dictionary as
follows:
As to Americanisms, so called, I have not been able to find many words, in respectable use, which
can be so denominated. These I have admitted and noted as peculiar to this country. I have fully
ascertained that most of the new words charged to the coinage of this country, were first used in
England. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [46th in the “Introduction”])
Webster’s statement here is seemingly inconsistent with that in the passage from the
“Preface”. In order to solve this problem, it becomes necessary to clarify Webster’s notion
of Americanism and to know a historical limitation in treating the words at his time. For
59
this purpose, it is beneficial to take a glance at the history of dictionaries specializing in

Americanisms.
The first dictionary of Americanisms is John Pickering’s Vocabulary, or Collection of
Words and Phrases Which Have Been Supposed to be Peculiar to the United States of
America. It was published in 1816, ten years before Webster’s Dictionary. According to
James Smith (1979:49), the entry words listed in this dictionary are actually “not ‘peculiar
to the United States’”. This is the only dictionary of Americanisms during Webster’s
lifetime. The second one was published more than thirty years after Pickering’s. It is John
Barlett’s Dictionary of Americanism (1848). Margaret Bryant (Thornton 1962:xiii) has
commented on the dictionary that it “showed that Pickering’s attitude had now been
replaced by an interest in dialect for its own sake.” In 1889, John S. Farmer published the
book Americanism Old and New. Then, in 1912, Richard Thornton laid the foundation for
the scientific study of Americanisms with his epoch-making American Glossary, which was
to become one of indispensable reference books for Sir William Craigie and James Hulbert
in compiling their renowned Dictionary of American English on Historical Principles
(1944). Thornton collected Americanisms based on the following definitions:
I Forms of speech now obsolete or provincial in England, which survive in the U.S.
II Words and phrases of distinctly American origin
III Nouns which indicate quadrupeds, birds, trees, articles of food, & c., that are distinctly
American
IV Names of persons and classes of persons, and of places
V Words which have assumed a new meaning
VI Words and phrases of which I [Thornton] have found earlier examples in American than in
English writers
(Thornton 1962:v)
It took approximately one hundred years after Pickering’s dictionary that the notion of
Americanism became clearly conceptualized in this way.
Since the dictionaries of Americanisms developed as described above, it would be
almost unreasonable to criticize Webster for his imperfect treatment of the words in his
Dictionary. There was obviously a historical limitation for Webster to treat them in a
satisfactory way; Webster’s treatment of Americanisms should not be interpreted from our
modern linguistic viewpoint as Friend and Reed have done. However, in order to clarify
Webster’s notion of Americanisms, Thornton’s definitions of the term are highly suggestive.
Webster’s notion revealed in the “Preface” is judged to correspond to Thornton’s definition
V; and Webster’s expressions in the “Introduction” to Thornton’s definitions II and III. In
the “Preface”, Webster remarked that words had to be defined so that they are
accommodated to the condition of the American people. In the “Introduction”, he said he
had not been able to find many words of American origin. That is, he is observed to have
distinguished the newly introduced senses and the newly introduced words. Therefore,
Webster’s seemingly inconsistent statements in the “Preface” and the “Introduction”
suggest that he attached more importance to the senses of words of American origin than
the words of American origin themselves.
Still, however, it cannot be said that Webster laid particular emphasis on American
senses. Adding information irrelevant to America, Webster was often highly objective in
the treatment of the senses of relevant words. Examples are:
60
CENT, n.
1. A hundred. In commerce, per cent. denotes a certain rate by the hundred; as, ten per cent. is
ten in the hundred, whether profit or loss. This rate is called percentage.
2. In the United States of America, a copper coin whose value is the hundredth part of a dollar.
DOLLAR, n.
A silver coin of Spain and of the United States, of the value of one hundred cents, or four shillings
and sixpence sterling. The dollar seems to have been originally a German coin, and in different
parts of Germany, the name is given to coins of different value.
In the second example here, Webster fairly correctly estimated the origin of dollar. The
OED reads that dollar is “The English name for the German thaler, a large silver coin, of
varying value, current in the German states from the sixteenth century” with the description
that the word was introduced into English in 1553.
Webster’s treatment of Americanisms indicates that his Dictionary is not so American as
the authorities who have advocated the prevailing perspective seem to believe.
It will be necessary here to note that the renowned “Webster’s way of spelling”, which is
usually regarded as one aspect of the American style of English, should not be exaggerated.
For instance, Joseph Friend, emphasizing its importance, has stated the following:
In orthography the American Dictionary shows some increase in conservatism but no basic change
in Webster’s position over twenty years, as various commentators have noted. (Friend 1967:54)
Opposing such a perspective, Ronald Wells claimed thus:
Certain changes which are the basis for present-day differences between British and American
practice were effected, particularly in the four classes represented above (honor, music, center,
defense). Regarding these innovations, however, there is evidence that in many cases the forms
which Webster chose to include were already current, such as the –or ending [...]. (Wells 1973:62)
Then, citing passages from historic documents which support his viewpoint, Wells
concluded that:
A more balanced assessment of Webster’s influence on American orthography, then, would give
him some credit for settling a number of points of divided usage, but would hesitate to attribute to
him very much greater shaping influence on the language. (Wells 1973:63)
Wells’s opinion is convincing, especially when his passages from historic documents are
referred to. However, the most convincing will be Webster’s own statements. In his
“Introduction” to the Dictionary, Webster provided a section discussing orthography (1828:
no. pag. [29th to 32nd in the “Introduction”]), and there he often made such statements as
when a word form “had been from time immemorial, the established orthography, why
unsettle the practice?” (1828: no. pag. [30th in the “Introduction”]) and “I have determined
to conform the orthography to established English analogies” (1828: no. pag. [31st in the
“Introduction”]). However much Webster may have tried to change the spelling of English
so that it might conform to the pronunciation before 1807, the year when he began
compiling the Dictionary, this has little relevance to his Dictionary. It will be appropriate to
61
consider that Webster’s usual practice in his Dictionary was to introduce the spelling which
had already been common among the Americans at his time, whether he might have been
involved in the spelling or not, with a conservative attitude; this means that Webster can
even be regarded as having tried to stop further changes in spelling, though admitting
prevailing customs in the language.
3.3.4 Dictionaries in Demand among Americans

during the Nineteenth Century
After all, Webster’s Dictionary can hardly be regarded as a product of the atmosphere of
anti-British sentiment.
In what way, then, did his Dictionary have relevance to the history of America? In order
to obtain an answer to this question, it is necessary to know what aspects of the Dictionary
attracted the attention of the American people in the nineteenth century. Since most
lexicographers have compiled their dictionaries responding to the demands of their times,
the relations between Webster’s Dictionary and his time can be found through the
investigation of how Americans were impressed by the nature of it. In this regard, the
‘dictionary-war’ which was waged between Webster and Joseph Worcester provides highly
suggestive information. Worcester was a lexicographer who published the Comprehensive
Pronouncing and Explanatory Dictionary of the English Language (1830), the Universal
and Critical Dictionary of the English Language (1846) and the Dictionary of the English
Language (1860) after Webster’s Dictionary. In rivalry with these dictionaries, Webster
published a revised edition of his Dictionary in 1841. This edition was followed by the
third, fourth and fifth editions in 1847, 1859 and 1864, respectively; the third and fourth
editions were edited by Chauncey Goodrich, a successor of Webster’s, and the fifth by a
lexicographer named Noah Porter. With regard to the details of the ‘war’, they have been
expounded by Joseph Friend (1967:82-103), but Charlton Laird has told its atmosphere in
brief:
[...] when Worcester’s book invaded the market, the “war” was on, with editorials in newspapers,
speeches, cartoons showing the dictionaries battling each other like pugilists, and a local passenger
conductor who would call out, going to Worcester, Massachusetts, “Worcester! Worcester! All
change from Webster.” (Laird 1972:289)
Eventually, Webster’s camp won the ‘war’. In revised editions of Webster’s Dictionary,
quite a few encyclopaedic words, archaic words and pictorial materials were added one
after another. However, these newly added features were not decisive factors for the victory
of Webster’s camp. Rather, it was the original aspects of the Dictionary almost left
untouched that drew people’s attention: information on English grammar and usage.
Referring to the ‘war’, Allen Read (1979:4-13) introduced invaluable historical literature:
the letters passed back and forth among publishing companies, book agents, teachers and
professors in the Middle West between the 1840’s and 1860’s. These letters vividly show
how Americans responded to the ‘war’, as well as reasons for the victory of Webster’s
camp. The following are some passages from the letters which show the situation:
62
T. A. Nesmith in Michigan, agent of the Merriam Co. in Chicago (January 27, 1854):
I feel a great interest that the North West which has taken such strides in the educational line
should act as a unit in officially introducing the Dictionary [in Webster’s camp] into Schools,
libraries & families of this section. It is an important object to be accomplished to have our whole
American youth taught to write, spell and pronounce alike. Our Orthography should be uniform.
Daniel Curry, President of Asbury University in Indiana (December 3, 1855):

We accordingly so use it [a dictionary in Webster’s camp] in this institution, and desire to see it
generally adopted in the schools of the country.
Common Schools in Springfield (December 5, 1850):

Such a work [a dictionary in Webster’s camp] does high honor to American literature, and
deserves universal public favor.
Thomas H. Benton, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction, in Iowa (February 28, 1849):
I shall recommend it [a dictionary in Webster’s camp] in the instructions which I propose issuing
early in the coming summer as a standard in the public schools of this state.
James D. Eads, Superintendent of Public Instruction in Iowa (1856):

We have adopted Webster’s Dictionaries in all our Public Schools in this state and I am making an
effort to have a copy of Webster’s Unabridged placed upon the desk of every teacher in the state,
by authority of the Legislature [...].
S. Hampstead, Governor of the state of Iowa (1854):

It [a dictionary in Webster’s camp] is a work which is an honor to America and to every land
where the English Language is spoken and as such should be made the standard for our Schools,
Colleges and literary Institutions. To ensure uniformity and a complete knowledge of our language
this work must be largely disseminated among the people, and for that purpose, no better mode
could be devised than its introduction into our common school. Every school house should have a
copy to which to refer by teacher and pupil.
The key phrases in these passages are “have our whole American youth taught to write,
spell and pronounce alike” and “to ensure uniformity [...] of our language”. These phrases
indicate that Americans at that time showed a keen interest in information on English
grammar and usage. Besides, all of the 6 letters above recommended the use of the
dictionaries in Webster’s camp at schools or home. This means that Webster’s Dictionary
was closely related to the educational situation at that time.
3.3.5 The American Educational Situation in Its Early Period
The American educational situation had relevance for Webster’s Dictionary not only in its
information on English grammar and usage, but also in one other aspect. It is the abundance
of biblical citations. In order to elucidate the point, reference to Ellwood Cubberley’s
Readings in the History of Education (1920), a collection of historical documents on
American education in its early period, is beneficial. Cubberley was an American educator
and pioneer writer on the history of American education; he served as president of
Vincennes University between 1891 and 1896 and as superintendent of schools in San
63
Diego, California between 1896 and 1898. In the following discussion, I will refer to the
contents of Cubberley’s Readings as a basis, occasionally pointing out the historical facts
which have been mentioned by three other authorities of American education, namely,
Thomas Pyles, Winthrop Francis and Charlton Laird.
Since the days well before American Independence, the people in America had attached
special importance to language and religious education. Pyles (1954:65) has cited the fact
that the Puritan church in America issued an order in 1647 requiring that every
Massachusetts town of fifty or more householders should appoint an instructor to teach all
children to read and write. This type of requirement became intensified as the number of
immigrants increased. As to the situation at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Pyles
has also pointed out the following fact:
The need for an unwavering line setting off right from wrong was just as urgent in the sphere of
language as in that of morals. It is little wonder, when one considers the social, moral, and
economic background of the most influential of our earliest settlers, that the linguistic earnestness
of the prescriptive grammarians should have met with such enthusiasm and sympathy on these
shores. (Pyles 1954:66)
Between 1790 and 1815, educational facilities termed ‘reading schools’ by the educators at
the time were established one after another in Boston. The purpose of the facilities indicates
that Americans’ requirements for language and religious education became even more
intensified. It is teaching reading, spelling, pronunciation, elocution and grammar to young
boys and girls. These schools partially replaced Latin schools which had been established
by then for high education. This is what William Fowle (Cubberley 1920:545), then a
school teacher, wrote at that time; among educational historians, his writings have generally
been regarded as excellent for knowledge about schools in Boston from the end of the
eighteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth. It is significant that the same
literature (Cubberley 1920:545) also shows that it was compulsory for every pupil at
reading schools to read the Bible and study spelling and grammar with the textbooks
written by none other than Webster.
While language and religious education was being conducted in this way in Boston, an
educational society was formed in New York at the beginning of the 1800’s. The name of
the society indicates how the people at the time were concerned about religious education:
the “Society for Establishing a Free School in the City of New York, for the Education of
such Poor Children as do not Belong to, or are not Provided for, by any Religious Society”.
This society appealed to the public to give full consideration to religious education; it was
in 1805. In this appeal, the members of the society (Cubberley 1920:553), pointing out
moral problems caused by immigrants, asserted that “it will be a primary object, without
observing the peculiar forms of any religious Society, to inculcate the sublime truths of
religion and morality contained in the Holy Scriptures”.
In 1820, the schools of Providence in Rhode Island adopted a few regulations for
educational methods: “The Regulations for the Instruction and Government of the Publick
Schools in the Town of Providence”. A passage from the regulations clearly shows that
they placed highest priority on language and religious education. It reads:
The Instruction shall be uniform in the several schools, and shall consist of Spelling, Reading, the
use of Capital letters and Punctuation, Writing, English Grammar & Arithmetick.
64
The Pronunciation shall be uniform in the several schools & the standard shall be the Critical
Pronouncing Dictionary of John Walker.
The following Books, and none others, shall be used in the several schools, viz: Alden’s
Spelling Book, first & second part, New Testament, American Preceptor, Murray’s Sequel to the
English Reader, Murray’s Abridgement of English Grammar and Dabol’s Arithmetick. (Cubberley
1920:548)
Incidentally, this passage also shows the spread of the grammars of Murray, Webster’s
formidable antagonist in an argument on grammatical theories; a feud between Webster and
Murray is expounded throughout Makoto Ikeda’s work (1999).
As observed thus far, the early history of America was inextricably related to language
and religious education. Richard Rollins (1980:124) has correctly remarked, “Like religion,
language took on great importance in the early republic”. Webster lived at that time as a
grammarian, writer of English textbooks and puritan versed in the Bible. In a sense,
Webster was a person who perfectly met the demands of the time. In this regard, Pyles
(1954:66) also expressed his feelings thus: “If Noah Webster had not been born, we should
have had to invent him.” There is little wonder if his Dictionary is abundant in linguistic
information and biblical citations as it actually is; Webster’s Dictionary can be called a
mirror of the time in this respect.
However, this does not mean that Webster was always a grammarian and a moralist half-
and-half; he was not necessarily pious throughout the compilation of his Dictionary.
Though quoting abundant biblical passages in his Dictionary, Webster still did not do this
as enthusiastically as Johnson. Besides, in numerous cases, he supplied citations from the
Bible to illustrate his view of English usage and grammar. From this viewpoint, Webster
can be said to have made use of the atmosphere of religious education for the benefit of
teaching English to the people in America. This point will be examined in detail in Section
4.5 and 5.1.3.
3.3.6 The Continuity of the American Lexicographic Tradition
It may safely be said now that Webster compiled his Dictionary in the context of the
educational situation in America. However, Webster’s was not the first dictionary that has
close relevance to the situation. That is, there is historical continuity between Webster’s
Dictionary and its preceding English dictionaries in America. I will discuss the matter
below with the help of investigations by Joseph Friend, George Krapp and Martha Gibson.
In a broad sense, the history of American lexicography began in the middle of the
eighteenth century. Americans then used English dictionaries of British origin which
conformed to their needs. In this situation, two dictionaries gained especially high
popularity. One is William Johnston’s Pronouncing and Spelling Dictionary (1764). This
dictionary contains material entitled “Catalogue of Words of Similar Sounds, but of
Different Spelling and Significations”. According to Krapp (1925:vol. 2, 352), it was
because of this material that the dictionary enjoyed such popularity. The other English
dictionary is a revised edition of William Perry’s Royal Standard English Dictionary
(1788). In a strict sense, this is not a dictionary of genuinely British origin, because the
lexicographer who revised its original edition (1775) was Worcester, Webster’s enemy in
65
the ‘dictionary war’ whom I referred to earlier. What Worcester did to the original edition
was adding encyclopaedic material which included the explanation of Scriptural proper
names and the names of rivers and mountains. Worcester, however, did not forget to add
material for the explanation of a system of pronunciation and English grammar. The
popularity of Johnston’s Dictionary and Perry’s Dictionary revised by Worcester indicates
how much Americans during the eighteenth century expected dictionaries to provide
information on English spelling, pronunciation and grammar. At the beginning of the
nineteenth century, another dictionary of English origin was revised by an American. It is
Stephen Jones’s version of Thomas Sheridan’s General Pronouncing and Explanatory
Dictionary of the English Language for the Use of Schools, Foreigners Learning English,
whose title must have pleased immigrants who were in need of learning English. It was
issued in 1806, the same year in which Webster’s Compendious Dictionary was published.
In addition to the situation as discussed above, the year of 1798 is highly memorable in
the history of American lexicography. In this year, the first English dictionary of American
origin came to be published. It was a School Dictionary published by a lexicographer
named Samuel Johnson, Jr. [Johnson Jr. hereafter], coincidentally the same name as ‘Dr.
Johnson’ in England. This dictionary is hardly available today; Friend (1967:105) has
pointed out that only two copies of it were extant as of 1967. It is, however, possible to
obtain some knowledge about the dictionary through Gibson’s fairly detailed account. Then,
according to Gibson (1936:286-287), Johnson Jr. listed approximate 4,000 words in his
School Dictionary; they are, Gibson has said, types of words which are not obsolete nor
very familiar. Gibson (1936:286-287) also quoted Johnson Jr.’s own statement concerning
the purpose of the dictionary: “The design of it is to furnish schools with a dictionary which
will enable youth more easily to acquire knowledge of the English language.” Krapp’s
(1925:vol. 2, 356) account of the dictionary is that it was sold for a low price to be used at
schools. Whether Gibson’s and Krapp’s observations may be exactly in accord or not with
the facts of the dictionary, its title and purpose strongly suggest that the first English
dictionary of American origin was in close contact with the context of language education
at schools in the country.
Thus, in respect of the inclusion of information on grammar and usage of the language,
Webster’s Dictionary is an extension of the dictionaries in America from the middle of the
eighteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth. His Dictionary, therefore, is not
entirely a brand-new type in America.
The historical context of Webster’s Dictionary becomes fairly clear when it is compared
with that of Johnson’s Dictionary. Both dictionaries have in common that they deal with
English grammar and usage in detail. However, there are fundamental differences between
the two in respect of their historical contexts.
In the case of Johnson’s Dictionary, it was published in response to the requirement for
fixing the language. This means that Johnson compiled his Dictionary almost exclusively
for men of letters in England. As to Webster’s Dictionary, the situation is totally different.
Webster compiled his Dictionary for people in general residing in America who wanted to
improve their English proficiency. Such an intention of Webster’s is far from conceivable
66
about Johnson. Johnson’s own remarks prove it. One year after he published the Dictionary,
Johnson (1756: n. pag. [1st (par. 2) in the “Preface”]) said, “it has been since considered
that works of that kind [Johnson’s Dictionary] are by no means necessary to the greater
number of readers”.
Another difference between the two dictionaries is found from the viewpoint of the
continuity of the lexicographical tradition. Johnson’s Dictionary is almost without
precedent in terms of its purpose; few English lexicographrs before Johnson had attempted
to compile a dictionary to fix the language. In contrast to this, Webster’s Dictionary has
close relations with some of its preceding dictionaries in America; Webster is thought to
have based himself on the tradition of American lexicography and the practice of trying to
improve the English used by the American public. And Webster was almost indifferent to
the deliberate establishment of an American style of English, after all.
The situation being thus, it is natural to conclude that Johnson’s and Webster’s views of
English grammar and usage as revealed in their dictionaries are essentially different from
each other, and that the differences will be reflected in their use of verbal examples.
4: Johnson's and Webster's Usual Practices
in Supplying Verbal Examples
4.1 Johnson’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations
4.1.1 An Apparent Contradiction between Johnson’s Principles and Practice
In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson mentioned his principles of the selection of
sources of citations from a historical viewpoint:
So far have I been from any care to grace my pages with modern decorations, that I have
studiously endeavoured to collect examples and authorities from the writers before the restoration,
whose works I regard as the wells of English undefiled, as the pure sources of genuine diction.
(Johnson 1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 61) in the “Preface”])
[...] as every language has a time of rudeness antecedent to perfection, as well as of false
refinement and declension, I have been cautious lest my zeal for antiquity might drive me into
times too remote, and croud my book with words now no longer understood. I have fixed Sidney’s
work for the boundary, beyond which I make few excursions. From the authours which rose in the
time of Elizabeth, a speech might be formed adequate to all the purposes of use and elegance.
These two passages indicate that Johnson had formulated the principles before he began to
compile the Dictionary. If he had rigidly observed the principles during the compilation of
the Dictionary, the major portion of his citations would have been comprised of phrases
and sentences from the literature published between Sir Philip Sidney’s (b.1554-d.1586)
time and the 1650’s. In fact, however, it appears that he was not necessarily faithful to the
principles. In his Dictionary, Johnson provided 1,310 entries on words beginning with the
letter L, which make up approximate 3.4% of the total number of entries in the Dictionary.
Within the range of these 1,310 entries, he allocated 4,047 citations. The investigation of
these citations seems to imply that the reality of Johnson’s practice of supplying citations
does not accord with his principles stated in the “Preface”. The following table shows the
results of the investigation; the figures here indicate the number of citations from relevant
sources.

in Johnson’s Dictionary
Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Shakespeare 640 Allestree 19 Dunciad 7 Calamy 2
Dryden 480 Glanville 18 Baker 7 Wycherley 1
68

in Johnson’s Dictionary (continued)

Bible 270 Davies 18 Sprat 6 Wake 1
Milton 165 Grew 17 Otway 6 Trevoux 1
Bacon 163 Thomson 15 Hubbard 6 Thompson 1
Addison 161 Raleigh 15 Harris 6 Tasser 1
Pope 156 Tillotson 14 Digby 6 “Song of the 1
King and the
Miller”
Locke 133 Fairfax 14 Derham 6 Smart 1
Spenser 130 Quincy 13 Creech 6 Skinner 1
Swift 114 King Charles 13 Cranshaw 6 Sea 1
Dictionary
Arbuthnot 65 Howell 13 Cleaveland 6 Scotch 1
Proverb
Prior 60 Cowley 13 Ainsworth 6 Savage 1
Hooker 58 Burnet 13 Sharp 5 Rymer 1
Sidney 57 Peacham 12 Hammond 5 Rawe 1
L’Estrange 53 Hill 12 Floyer 5 Oxford 1
Reasons
against
the Covenant
South 48 Hayward 12 Ascham 5 Norris 1
Brown 42 Daniel 12 Suckling 4 Muschenbroek 1
Boyle 40 Tusser 11 Hakewill 4 Littleton 1

Atterbury 31 Sandy 11 Garth 4 Keil 1
Mortimer 29 Roscommon 11 Evelyn 4 Johnson 1
Denham 29 Newton 11 Broome 4 Introduction 1
to Grammar
Miller 27 Camden 11 Whitgift 3 Herring 1
Clarendon 26 Rogers 10 Walton 3 Halifax 1
Philips 25 Holder 10 Southern 3 Guardian 1
Watts 24 Cheyne 10 Smalridge 3 Gosthead 1
Taylor 24 Carew 10 Herbert 3 Friend 1
Wiseman 23 Abbot 10 Gibson 3 Freeholder 1
Temple 23 Spectator 9 Dennis 3 Farquhar 1
Donne 23 Rowe 9 Congreve 3 Epitaph 1
on Vanbrugh
69


Wotton 22 Moxon 9 Common 3 Drayton 1
Prayer Book
Knolles 22 Harvey 9 Child 3 Dorset 1
Hudibras 22 Hanmer 9 Calmet 3 Defoe 1
Collier 22 Hale 9 King 3 Davis 1
Woodward 21 Graunt 9 Tickel 2 Chapman 1
Waller 21 Granville 9 Tate 2 Brerewood 1
Ray 21 Wilkins 8 Smith 2 Bramhall 1
Dictionary 21 Tatler 8 Sanderson 2 Baynard 1
Bentley 21 Stillingfleet 8 May 2 Barker 1
Gay 20 More 8 Duppa 2 Bailey 1
Ben Johnson 20 Felton 8 Cowell 2 Baconholder 1
Ayliffe 20 Walsh 7 Clarissa 2 ‘unspecified’ 1
This analysis is based on a small portion of the whole of Johnson’s citations in his
Dictionary, but its credibility becomes ensured when it is compared with other analyses of
the same kind. That is, at least two authorities on Johnson’s Dictionary made statistical
analyses of sources of his citations in the past. They are Lewis Freed and Allen Read.
Freed’s analysis has not been published, but Theodore Stenberg has given a detailed
account of it. According to Stenberg (1944:203), Freed analysed all sources of Johnson’s
citations supplied in the first volume of his Dictionary. Stenberg (1944:203) has shown the
figures Freed mentioned concerning all authors from whom Johnson quoted more than 500
times: “Shakespeare, 8694; Dryden, 5627; Milton, 2733; Bacon, 2483; Addison, 2439;
Pope, 2108; Swift, 1761; Locke, 1674; Spenser, 1546; Hooker, 1216; South, 1092; Browne,
1070; Arbuthnot, 1029; Sidney, 762; Prior, 706; L’Estrange, 654; Boyle, 592; Watts, 509”.
In addition to these figures, Stenberg (1944:203) has also confirmed Freed’s analysis about
Johnson’s citations from the Bible: “Old Testament, 1448; New Testament, 508; Apocrypha,
267: a total of 2223”.
As to Read’s analysis, he studied 10,000 citations beginning at entries on words for the
letter M. Based on the results of this study, Read (1986b:37) has shown the percentages of
the authors appearing frequently: “Shakespeare 17.2, Dryden 10.0, Bacon 4.6, Milton 4.5,
the Bible4.5, Addison 3.8-4.3, Pope 3.1, Spenser 2.8, Swift 2.1, and Sidney 1.5”. When
Freed’s analysis and Read’s are compared, they show little difference in indicating
Johnson’s tendencies in his selection of sources. And the tendencies are also observable in
my analysis. That is, each of the three analyses indicates that Johnson quoted from
Shakespeare exceedingly frequently, and from Dryden in second-order frequency; then, the
frequencies of quotation from John Milton, Francis Bacon, Addison, Pope, Edmund
Spenser, Swift, Sidney and the Bible follow after them. There is a little difference among
the three analyses concerning the citations from the Bible; my data show that Johnson
70
quoted from the Bible in third-order frequency, Freed’s in sixth-order frequency and Read’s
in fifth-order frequency. Nevertheless, it is clear that Johnson frequently quoted from the
Bible anyway. It can now be said that these similarities among the three analyses assure the
safety of proceeding with the analysis further based on the tendencies revealed in Table 1.
Then, according to the table, Johnson was apparently not true to the principles he himself
stated in the “Preface”. In order to clarify the point in detail, it is helpful to refer to some
misconceptions among authorities. It is common knowledge that Johnson wrote his
“Preface” after he finalized the body of the Dictionary. For this reason, quite a few
authorities have taken it for granted that Johnson almost always observed the principles
throughout his engagement with the compilation of the Dictionary. In this regard, Kikuo
Yamakawa (1971:288) has claimed that Johnson basically did not quote from Dryden
(b.1631-d.1700), Swift (b.1667-d.1745) and Addison (b.1671-d.1719). Since Johnson said
that he “studiously endeavoured to collect examples” from literature before the Restoration,
it may be natural for Yamakawa to have formulated such an opinion. As a matter of fact,
however, Johnson quoted from Dryden quite frequently as shown above. Furthermore,
Table 1 shows that Johnson quoted from Swift in tenth-order frequency and from Addison
in sixth-order frequency. In consequence, Johnson quoted from the three authors more
frequently than some authors before the Restoration.
Yamakawa’s misunderstanding concerns the lower limit of the period which Johnson
mentioned in relation to his selection of sources of citations. In contrast to this, David
Fleeman, a renowned Johnsonian, had an erroneous idea concerning the upper limit of the
period. Fleeman did not accept Johnson’s statements on his principles as they are, but he
(1984:45) made a mistake in claiming that “Johnson contributed little to philology, and he
had not much access to early forms of English”; more specifically, he (1984:38) also
claimed that “The books he [Johnson] used were limited to the period from Shakespeare to
Johnson himself”. This conception should be corrected. As a matter of fact, Johnson quoted
from Spenser (b.1552?-d.1599) in ninth-order frequency; Johnson quoted from him more
frequently than many authors after Shakespeare (b.1564-d.1616). Furthermore, Johnson
even quoted from Geoffrey Chaucer (b.1340?-d.1400?), though he did not perform this in
the L’s. For instance, in the entries on quaint, rote and tackle, Johnson supplied following
citations, respectively:
As clerkes been full subtle and queint. Chaucer.

Wele couthe he sing, and playen on a rote. Chaucer.
The takil smote and in it went. Chaucer.
Other citations from Chaucer are observable in the entries on donjon, erke, grin, welkin,
etc. This is a point Read (1986b:37) also referred to; pointing out the fact that “Here and
there one can find references to Middle English writers [in Johnson’s Dictionary]”, Read
clarified that “Chaucer appears under such words as dam, defend, drotchel, gourd, mucker,
sneap, etc”. (The reason why Johnson quoted from such authors before Sidney, which is
linguistically motivated for the purpose of indicating changes in the senses and usage of
words, will be seen in Section 8.1.2, for instance, through his use of citations from
Chaucer.)
Lastly, Robert Burchfield (1985:85-86) has claimed that “The central body of his
[Johnson’s] illustrative quotations was drawn from the greatest literary, philosophical, and
71
scientific works of the period from Sidney to the Restoration, that is from the 1580s to
1660.” This claim can be regarded as a mere paraphrase of Johnson’s statements in the
“Preface” mentioned above. Thus, Burchfield had the same mistaken belief as Yamakawa’s
and Fleeman’s.
4.1.2 Johnson’s Statements on His Selection of Entry-words
The misconceptions about the sources of Johnson’s citations have been brought about not
only by the two passages in the “Preface” which were mentioned in the previous sub-
section. There is another passage in the “Preface” which is liable to fortify the
misconceptions. The passage runs as follows:
If the language of theology were extracted from Hooker and the translation of the Bible; the terms
of natural knowledge from Bacon, the phrases of policy, war, and navigation from Raleigh; the
dialect of poetry and fiction from Spenser and Sidney, and the diction of common life from
Shakespeare, few ideas would be lost to mankind, for want of English words, in which they might
be expressed. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 62) in the “Preface”])
The perusal of this passage reveals that Johnson here substantially referred not to the
selection of sources of citations but to the selection of entry-words; in this passage, he
mentioned the ‘terms’ of natural knowledge, the ‘dialect’ of poetry and fiction, etc., which
concern entry-words rather than citations. This passage is in no way a bibliography of
Johnson’s citations. However, the six authors mentioned in it all published their works
between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s. Their dates indicate it; Richard Hooker’s dates are
from 1554 (?) to 1600, Bacon’s from 1561 to 1626, Sir Walter Raleigh’s from 1552 to 1618,
etc. These authors all lived at the time of ‘the wells of English undefiled’, and Johnson said
that he had endeavoured to collect verbal examples from literature at that time. For this
reason, the passage has often been associated with Johnson’s selection of sources of
citations. For instance, Tetsuro Hayashi, referring to the six authors, has given a
commentary on the passage as follows:
Needless to say, these authors are only a limited number of authorities which Johnson most
frequently quoted in his Dictionary. However, they are apparently the most typical sources from
which an abundance of most genuine, polite, elegant diction in the English language could have
been drawn in his time. (Hayashi 1978:105)
The fact is that the six authors were not necessarily ‘typical sources’ for Johnson to quote
from. Certainly, Johnson quoted frequently from Shakespeare and the Bible, which were
mentioned in the passage from the “Preface”. At the same time, however, Johnson often
quoted from Addison and Swift, authors following the Restoration, as already indicated.
Additionally, Table 1 in Section 4.1.1 shows that Johnson did not quote so often from
Raleigh, one of the six authors. The citations from Raleigh are far smaller in number than
those from some other authors after the 1650’s. To be specific, within the range of the L’s,
Johnson quoted 15 times from Raleigh, but 156 times from Pope (b.1688-d.1744), 65 from
John Arbuthnot (b.1667-d.1735), 60 from Matthew Prior (b.1664-d.1721), 42 from Sir
Thomas Browen (b.1663-d.1704), 25 from Ambrose Philips (b.1675?-d.1749), 24 from
72
Isaac Watts (b.1674-d.1748), 21 from John Woodward (b.1665-d.1728), 21 from Richard

Bentley (b.1662-d.1724) and 20 from John Gay (b.1685-d.1732). Freed’s and Read’s
analyses also do not indicate that Raleigh is a source of high frequency in Johnson’s
citations.
4.1.3 A Solution to the Apparent Contradiction
In this way, in his selection of sources of citations, Johnson’s practice apparently did not
accord with his principles. For the purpose of collecting phrases and sentences to be
supplied in his Dictionary, Johnson actually ranged over literature more extensively than
generally thought. Gwin Kolb and Ruth Kolb were partially aware of this. When they
pointed out the fact, the Kolbs (1972:67) emphatically remarked that “we should stress the
patent fact that, his [Johnson’s] remark in the Preface notwithstanding, he did not always
drink deep from ‘the wells of English undefiled’ ”. However, their emphasis was not
sufficient. It is not accurate to think that Johnson ‘did not always’ quote from the authors
between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s; rather, he supplied an abundance of citations from
authors in and after the 1660’s. Edward McAdam and George Milne appear to have been
prudent when they stated that:
[Johnson] decided to begin with Sir Philip Sidney (about 1580) and to end just before his
contemporaries. He modified this a little by using Chaucer occasionally, and a few of his own
friends, as well as some of his own works [...]. (McAdam and Milne 1963:viii)
This claim shows that they interpreted the 1650’s as “just before” Johnson’s time. This
interpretation, however, does not seem to be helpful to solve the problematic discrepancy
between Johnson’s principles stated in the “Preface” and his practice.
In this way, Johnson even seems to have disregarded his principles in the practice of
supplying citations. Why, then, did he mention the period between Sidney’s time and the
1650’s in relation to his selection of sources of citations? To answer this question, the
following statement by Noel Osselton is highly suggestive:
Johnson’s own definition of the chronological limits [...] had to do especially with the literary
function which the dictionary fulfilled. (Osselton 1995:7)
In this statement, it is suggested that the principles Johnson mentioned in the “Preface”
have relevance to literary aspects of his citations. This suggestion is reasonable and
appropriate. The reason is that the reconfirmation of relevant passages in the “Preface”
reveals Johnson’s reference to the elegance of the language: “From the authours which rose
in the time of Elizabeth, a speech might be formed adequate to all the purposes of use and
elegance”. Suppose that Johnson formulated the principles mainly from his literary
viewpoint, it becomes possible to resolve the apparent contradiction. That is, the reason
why he actually quoted frequently from the authors before Sidney’s time and after the
1650’s can be regarded thus: Johnson did not cling to his literary preference in the practice
of supplying citations.
73
4.2 Johnson’s Citations as Substitutes for Definitions
4.2.1 Some Typical Examples
Gwin Kolb and Ruth Kolb (1972:64) have claimed that Johnson often supplied citations “as
supplements to his own definitions”. This claim is partially justified. They tried to prove
their claim as follows:
We cite, for instance, the entry under argumentation in the Dictionary, which reads: “Reasoning;
the act of reasoning”; and then immediately on the next line: “Argumentation is that operation of
the mind, whereby we infer one proposition from two or more propositions premised. [...] Watts’s
Logick.” (G. & R. Kolb 1972:64-65)
Actually, however, their claim is not sufficiently convincing. Johnson occasionally supplied
citations in a more radical way than the Kolbs conceived. There are considerable number of
entries and sub-entries in the Dictionary in which Johnson supplied citations as substitutes
for definitions without commenting on entry-words in his words. Moreover, quite a few of
these citations do not even include relevant entry-words in them. This is a point which the
Kolbs apparently failed to notice. Examples are:
J: LADY-MANTLE. n.s.
The leaves are serrated, the cup of the flower is divided into eight segments, expanded in form
of a star; the flowers are collected into bunches upon the tops of the stalks; each seed vessel
generally contains two seeds. Miller.
J: LAZULI. n.s.
The ground of this stone is blue, veined and spotted with white, and a glistering or metallick
yellow [...] and when rich, is found, upon trial, to yield about one-sixth of copper, with a very little
silver. Woodward’s Metallick Fossils.
Additionally, Johnson sometimes supplied more than one citation in an entry or sub-entry
to provide minute information on the relevant entry-word without giving any comments.
One example is seen in the entry on leap-year:
J: LEAP-YEAR. n.s.
Leap-year or bissextile is every fourth year, and so called from its leaping a day more that year
than in a common year [...].
To find the leap-year you have this rule:
Divide by 4; what’s left shall be
For leap-year 0; for past 1, 2, 3. Harris.
That the sun consisteth of 365 days and almost six hours [...] and this is the occasion of the
bissextile or leap-year. Brown’s Vulg. Err.
In this example, the second citation from Browne can be regarded as a supplement to the
first one from John Harris. Other examples of the same structure can be fairly easily found.
The entry on larboard reads:
74
J: LARBOARD. n.s.
The left-hand side of a ship, when you stand with your face to the head. Harris.
Or when Ulysses on the larboard shunn’d
Charybdis, and by the other whirlpool steer’d. Milton.
Tack to the larboard, and stand off to sea,
Veer starboard sea and land. Dryden.
In this example, the first citation functions as a definition in which the entry-word larboard
is not included. As to the second and third citations, they can be regarded as supplements to
the first one. Likewise, the entry on leet reads:
J: LEET. n.s.
Leete, or leta, is otherwise called a law-day [...] these jurisdictions, one and
other, be now abolished, and swallowed up in the county court. Cowell.
Who has a breast so pure,
But some uncleanly apprehensions
Keep leets and law-days, and in sessions sit
With meditations lawful. Shakespeare’s Othello.
You would present her at the leet,
Because she bought stone jugs, and no seal’d quarts. Shak.
In this example, the citation from John Cowell functions as the definition of leet, and
citations from Shakespeare are supplied as supplements to it.
4.2.2 Johnson's Motivation behind Substituting Citations for Definitions
From what sources and on what occasions did Johnson supply citations as substitutes for
definitions? This is a point to which little attention has been paid until today, but it
concerns one of the essential aspects of Johnson’s citations: the relations between citations
and definitions. Except for citations which can be regarded as supplements, such as the
second and third ones in the entries on leap-year, larboard and leet, Johnson replaced his
definitions by citations in 75 entries within the range of the L’s in his Dictionary. These
citations are taken from 16 sources in total. The following table shows the situation in
detail; the figures indicate the number of citations from relevant sources.
Table 2: Sources of Citations Substituted for Definitions in Entries on Words

for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary
Sources Freq. Entry-words

Addison 1 larch (n.s.)
Ainsworth 4 life-everlasting (---), limpet (n.s), limmer (n.s.), lourge
(n.s.)
Bailey 1 lamentine (n.s.)
Calmet 1 locust (n.s.)
Carew 1 lestercock (n.s)
75
Table 2: Sources of Citations Substituted for Definitions in Entries on Words

for the Letter L in Johnson’s Dictionary (continued)
Sources Freq. Entry-words

Cowell 2 leet (n.s), legacy (n.s.)
Hanmer 6 lavolta (n.s.), leash (n.s.), lech (v.a.), linstock (n.s.),
loggats (n.s.), lush (adj.)
Harris 5 larboard (n.s.), latches (n.s.), leap-year (n.s.), logarithms
(n.s.), loxodromick (n.s.)
Hill 7 labdanum (n.s.), lac (n.s.), lapis lazuli (---), lead (n.s.),
lentisck (n.s.), litharge (n.s.), logwood (n.s.)
Miller 17 lady-bedstraw (n.s.), lady-mantle (---), lady’s slipper (---),
larkspur (n.s.), lavender (n.s.), leadwort (n.s.), leek (n.s.),
lentil (n.s.), lettuce (n.s.), lily (n.s.), lily-hyacinth (n.s.),
lily of the valley (n.s.), lionleaf (n.s.), locust-tree (n.s.),
lote tree (n.s.), lovage (n.s.), loveapple (n.s.)
Peacham 1 lampblack (n.s.)
Skinner 1 loom (v.n.)
Quincy 2 leucophlegmatick (adj.), ligament (n.s.)
Spenser 2 lustless (adj.), lyeke (adj.)
Walton 1 loach (n.s.)
Woodward 1 lazuli (n.s.)
Dictionaries 22 labefy (v.a.), labent (adj.), lamm (v.a.), largition (n.s.),
larker (n.s.), larvated (adj.), lax (n.s.), lee (n.s.), lentitude
(n.s.), lewis d’or (n.s.), libral (adj.) libration (n.s.),
limitaneous (adj.), linchpin (n.s.), loof (n.s.), lucidity
(n.s.), lucrifick (adj.), ludification (n.s.), lumbago (n.s.),
lumination (n.s.), lusk (adj.), lymphated (adj.)
This table indicates two notable facts. One concerns the types of entry-words. When
Johnson substituted his citations for definitions, he almost always did this in entries on
technical terms, names of animals and plants, etc. In other words, most of the entries are on
encyclopaedic words. Another fact concerns the types of sources. We confirmed in Sections
4.1.1 and 4.1.2 that Johnson generally quoted from authors of literary works. However, in
the 16 sources shown in the table, the names of the authors are hardly seen; he quoted
merely one or two times from the authors. Instead, it is seen here that Johnson quoted
frequently from such authors as Sir Thomas Hanmer, a politician, Harris, a lexicographer of
an encyclopaedic dictionary, John Hill, a natural scientist, and Philip Miller, a botanist.
Besides, this table indicates that Johnson extracted 22 sentences or phrases from other
dictionaries.
Concerning Johnson’s practice of supplying citations, David Micklethwait, basically an
authority on Webster’s Dictionary, has recognized that Johnson’s citations can be divided
into two types:
Johnson generally gave single names to identify his authorities, but those names were of two quite
different types. Some were the authority for definitions that had been copied from other reference
books, such as Harris (the Lexicon Technicum), Cowell (a law dictionary), Miller (gardening) or
76
Quincy (medical). The abbreviation Dict generally meant Bailey. The other names were authorities
for usage, being the authors of his quotations. (Micklethwait 2000:178)
This statement can be regarded as correct in principle. When Johnson substituted citations
for definitions, he usually did this from an encyclopaedic viewpoint irrelevantly to English
literature and English usage.
4.3 Webster’s Usual Selection of Sources of Citations
4.3.1 A Problem of Widely Accepted Opinions
It has generally been thought that Webster was hardly aware of the importance of citations
in English dictionaries. Allen Read (1986b:41) has claimed that “the giving of quotations
was a minor part of his work [Webster’s Dictionary]”. In the same way, Daisuke
Nagashima (1974:109) has said that Webster almost totally disregarded the value of
citations in dictionaries. Both of them expressed their opinions based on the following
statement by Webster:
One half of the whole bulk of Johnson’s Dictionary is composed of quotations equally useless.
One half of all the money that has been paid for the book, and which, in fifty years, must have
been a very great amount, has been taken from the purchasers for what is entirely useless. (Boulton
1971:136)
Joseph Friend (1967:42) has also remarked that “Obviously Webster looked upon
quotations as [...] inessential”. This opinion is based on Webster’s own words quoted
below:
One of the most objectionable parts of Johnson’s Dictionary, in my opinion, is the great number of
passages cited from authors, to exemplify his definitions. Most English words are so familiarly and
perfectly understood, and the sense of them so little liable to be called in question, that they may
be safely left to rest on the authority of the lexicographer, without examples. (Webster 1828: n.
Such opinions as Read’s, Nagashima’s and Friend’s have been widely accepted. These
opinions can apparently be justified by the fact that the number of citations in Webster’s
Dictionary is approximate one sixth of that in Johnson’s. However, a close analysis of
Webster’s selection of sources of citations proves that the opinions are not in accord with
the facts.
4.3.2 Webster’s Selection of Sources of Citations
The following table shows the details of Webster’s selection of sources of citations in the
L’s in his Dictionary; the figures here indicate the number of citations from relevant
sources.
77

in Webster’s Dictionary

Bible 182 Gray 3 Walsh 1 Feltham 1
Dryden 73 Glanville 3 Tusser 1 Ellicott 1
Shakespeare 50 Gay 3 Tooke 1 Dunciad 1
Pope 46 Felton 3 Thomson 1 Drayton 1
Milton 31 Denham 3 Tatler 1 Digby 1
Addison 21 Collier 3 Stick 1 Dict. Trev 1
Locke 12 Clarendon 3 Shaw 1 Davies 1
Swift 10 Arbuthnot 3 Rowe 1 Cranch. Rep 1
Bacon 10 Woodward 2 Roscommon 1 Coxe 1
Spenser 9 Tillotson 2 Ray 1 Cowley 1
Prior 9 Sprat 2 Ramsay 1 Com. Rev. 1
L’Estrange 7 Sandys 2 Plato 1 Clifton 1
Spectator 6 Mason 2 Philips 1 Cleaveland 1
Watts 5 Johnson 2 Paus. 1 Child 1
Rambler 5 Hamilton 2 Parsons 1 Charles 1
Hooker 5 Grew 2 Parnell 1 Camden 1
Taylor 4 Fairfax 2 Parker 1 Byron 1
South 4 Donne 2 Paley 1 Butler 1
Sidney 4 Cheyne 2 Otway 1 Buckminster 1
Encyclopedia 4 Burke 2 Newton 1 Blackmore 1
Atterbury 4 Broome 2 Littleton 1 Barker 1
Wotton 3 Blackstone 2 Kent 1 Asiat. Res. 1
Washington 3 Bentley 2 Irving 1 Ames 1
Waller 3 Ayliffe 2 Ibm 1 Adage 1
Temple 3 Franklin 2 Hubberd 1 ‘unspecified’ 2
Rogers 3 Wiseman 1 Hedge 1 ----- ---
Mortimer 3 Whitgifte 1 Wister 1 ----- ---
From an overall viewpoint, this table reflects two notable facts: Webster’s careful selection
of citations and his favourite style of English.
Firstly, concerning his careful selection of citations, the total number of citations
indicated in the table becomes 632. This signifies that he supplied quite a small number of
citations when compared with Johnson. Webster provided 2,024 entries in the L’s in his
Dictionary. Therefore, he allocated 0.3 citations per entry there. As analysed in Section
78
4.1.1, Johnson allocated 4,047 citations in the L’s which is composed of 1,310 entries; that
is, Johnson allocated 3.0 citations per entry within this range. However, this does not mean
that Webster was indifferent to the value of citations. This becomes clear when we focus
our attention on his approach to selecting the sources of his citations. Table 3 also indicates
that Webster quoted from approximate 100 sources; these are assumed to have been enough
for Webster to supply a larger number of citations than he did. Actually, however, he
quoted only one or two times each from most of these sources, which is thought to be a
trace of Webster’s careful selection of citations. This signifies that Webster was critical not
about citations themselves, but about their ‘excessive’ number. He stated:
In most cases, one example is sufficient to illustrate the meaning of a word; and this is not
absolutely necessary, except in cases where the signification is a deviation from the plain literal
sense, a particular application of the term; or in a case, where the sense of the word may be
doubtful, and of questionable authority. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])
In a few cases, where the sense of a word is disputed, I have departed from the general plan, and
cited a number of authorities. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])
Secondly, as to the reflection of Webster’s favourite style of English, it requires some

explanation. Against Webster’s usual practice to quote only one or two times from one
source, there are some sources from which Webster quoted frequently. Especially, he
quoted ten times or more from the Bible, Dryden, Shakespeare, Pope, Milton, Addison,
John Locke, Swift and Bacon; from the Bible, he quoted as many as 182 times. As a matter
of fact, these nine sources are almost identical with the top nine from which Johnson
frequently quoted in his Dictionary. That is, Johnson quoted especially frequently from
Shakespeare, Dryden, the Bible, Milton, Bacon, Addison, Pope, Locke and Spenser in this
order in the L’s in his Dictionary. This is not a coincidence. One reason for this
phenomenon is that Webster made use of Johnson’s citations. In the “Introduction” to his
Dictionary, Webster stated:
In general, I have illustrated the significations of words, and proved them to be legitimate, by a
short passage from some respectable authors, often abridged from the whole passage cited by
Johnson. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])
In this situation, it is natural that Johnson’s practice of supplying citations was reflected in
Webster’s. There is, however, another reason for Webster’s selection of the nine sources.
Apart from the three sources of the Bible, Shakespeare and Bacon, another six sources of
high frequency in Webster’s Dictionary are taken from the literature between the beginning
of the Restoration and Johnson’s time. This literature reflects the language to which
Webster attached special importance. He stated:
The language of Addison, Johnson, and other distinguished writers of the last century, in the use of
the indicative, is therefore, more correct than the language of the writers in the age of Elizabeth;
and their practice is principally the common usage of our country at this day. (Webster 1828: n.
79
There is, among some poets of the present day, an affectation of reviving the use of obsolete words.
Some of these may perhaps be revived to advantage; but when this practice proceeds so far as to
make a glossary necessary to the understanding of a poem, it seems to be a violation of good taste.
How different is the simple elegance of Dryden, Pope, Gray, Goldsmith and Cowper! (Webster
1828: n. pag. [46th in the “Introduction”])
In these statements, Webster’s favourite style of English is clearly revealed. At the stage of
1807, Webster harshly criticized Johnson, referring to Johnson’s selection of sources of
citations:
Among the authors cited in support of his definitions, there are indeed the names of Tillotson,
Newton, Locke, Milton, Dryden, Addison, Swift, and Pope; but no small portion of words in his
vocabulary, are selected from writers of the 17th century, who, though well versed in the learned
languages, had neither taste nor a correct knowledge of English. (Boulton 1971:129)
This passage signifies two facts. Firstly, Webster’s favourite style of English had basically
been consistent from 1807 to 1828; the passage in 1807 shows that he approved of Locke,
Milton, etc., the authors from whom he frequently quoted in his Dictionary. Secondly, at
the stage of 1807 Webster misunderstood Johnson’s selection of sources of citations. That
is, he referred to Johnson’s inclusion of citations from the literature in the 17th century.
This implies that up to 1807 Webster had read and miscomprehended Johnson’s statements
in the “Preface” to his Dictionary to the effect that Johnson endeavoured to collect verbal
examples from the literature between Sidney’s time to the 1650’s. With the exception of
Dryden and a few other authors, the language of authors before and in the 17th century was
basically unpleasant for Webster. According to James Boulton (1971:130), Webster said in
1807 that “Indeed some writers of age and judgement are led by Johnson’s authority to the
use of words which are not English, and which give their style an air of pedantry and
obscurity; and not infrequently, to the use of words which do not belong to the language”.
Webster was originally critical about Johnson, and his condemnation of Johnson lasted
until 1828. In the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, Webster (1828: n. pag. [45th]) criticized
Johnson’s Dictionary in detail beginning with the phrase “the principal faults in Johnson’s
Dictionary are [...]”. In this criticism, however, Webster did not mention Johnson’s
selection of sources of citations. He is thought to have noticed sometime after 1807 that
Johnson actually had not quoted so frequently from authors before the Restoration.
Concerning Webster’s frequent quotation from Shakespeare and Bacon, the authors in the
latter half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th, it is regarded as the reflections
of Johnson’s tendency in supplying citations. There is, however, a slight difference between
Johnson’s treatment of the two authors and Webster’s. That is, Johnson quoted from
Shakespeare in first-order frequency, and from Bacon in fifth-order frequency. Webster, on
the other hand, quoted from Shakespeare in third-order frequency, and from Bacon in ninth-
order frequency, showing that he did not quote from the authors so frequently as Johnson
did.
80
4.3.3 Citations from American Authors
A false perspective has been repeated to date that Webster supplied abundant citations from
American authors. In conjunction with this, I have to quote the same passage from the
“Preface” to Webster’s Dictionary which I referred to in Section 3.3.2. The passage is as
follows:
I do not indeed expect to add celebrity to the names of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay,
Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull, Hamilton, Belknap, Ames, Mason, Kent,
Hare, Silliman, Cleaveland, Walsh, Irving, and many other Americans distinguished by their
writings or by their science; but it is with pride and satisfaction, that I can place them, as
authorities, on the same page with those of Boyle, Hooker, Milton, Dryden, Addison, Ray, Milner,
Cowper, Davy, Thomson and Jameson. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [2nd (par. 13) in the “Preface”])
Referring to this passage, George Krapp has claimed:
With pride and satisfaction Webster places Franklin, Washington, Adams [...]. The satisfaction
seems somewhat irrelevant and puerile. In a dictionary it is of no great importance whether
quotations illustrating the meaning of a word are taken from one reputable author or another.
(Krapp 1925:vol. 2, 369)
Krapp’s criticism here is manifestly based on his assumption that Webster supplied an
abundance of citations from American authors in his Dictionary. Joseph Friend (1967:36) is
in line with Krapp in saying that Webster’s intention of listing Americanisms is
“manifested chiefly by the use of illustrative quotations from American [...] writers”.
Thomas Pyles (1954:93) has also claimed that “In the American Dictionary Webster took
pride in his use of illustrative quotations from the works of American writers.” And Albert
Baugh (2002:369) has believed that a significant feature of Webster’s Dictionary lay in a
considerable number of “quotations from American authors”. All these four authorities
have expressed their opinions based on Webster’s statement above. However, as Table 3 in
Section 4.3.2 indicates, Webster seldom quoted from the American authors he mentioned in
the passage; the table shows that he merely quoted once each from Michael Walsh, David
Ramsay, James/Joseph Kent, Washington Irving and Moses/Parker Cleaveland, and two
times each from George Mason, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin. Thus,
citations from American authors in Webster’s Dictionary are quite rare, and far smaller in
number than those from English authors such as Dryden, Pope, Milton, Addison, etc.
Joseph Reed is one of a few authorities who have been aware of the fact. With the
recognition that there is a discrepancy between Webster’s statement and his practice in
quoting from American authors, Reed has remarked as follows:
[Webster] had stated a distinct purpose: to draw attention to ‘American authorities’ and scientists
(‘Franklin, Washington, Adams [...]’). In spite of this intention, more than half of the illustrations
he added to Johnson (at least in the L’s) came from the Bible [...]. (Reed 1962:104)
In this statement of Reed’s, however, another type of misunderstanding is found. Actually,

Webster did not say that he preferred to quote from American authors. He only said, “I can
place them [the names of American authors], as authorities”. The pronoun “them” in the
81
passage is related to the names of American authors, and the words citations and quote and
their synonyms are not included in the passage from the “Preface”. In other words, the
passage only means that Webster put down the names of American authors, and nothing
more than that. In this sense, Webster can be regarded as having done what he said in the
passage. Examples are:
W: LAIRD, n.
In the Scots dialect, a lord; the proprietor of a manor. Cleaveland.
W: LAZULITE, n.
A mineral of a light, indigo blue color, occurring in small masses, or crystalized in oblique four-
sided prisms. Cleaveland.
As these examples show, Webster sometimes indicated the names of American authors next
to his definitions without supplying any citations from them. David Micklethwait
(2000:175) recognized this practice of Webster’s when he said, “Occasionally he [Webster]
put in the names of American writers, and now and then an American quotation”. It is a pity
that Micklethwait did not associate the practice to the related passage in the “Preface” to
Webster’s Dictionary. I will not go into detail about this, for it has little relevance to
citations. It is sufficient here to show that Webster hardly quoted from American authors.
However, it is not unique to Webster to have indicated the names of authors without
quoting from them. There was Webster’s predecessor in this practice. It was none other
than Johnson. In the abridged edition of his Dictionary, Johnson usually indicated the
names of authors as follows without quoting a phrase or a sentence from them:
J: To ABASE. v.a.
To cast down, to depress, to bring low. Sidney.
J: To ABASH. v.a.
To make ashamed. Milton.
Consequently, Webster seldom supplied citations from American authors in his Dictionary.
For him, the ideal style of English was basically found in the works of English authors in
and after 1660. Referring to the textbooks Webster published before the compilation of his
Dictionary, Tom McArthur (1986:100) claimed “He [Webster] went on to produce a
grammar and a reader, and for purposes of citation and exemplification drew upon
American rather than British texts”. Whether this claim may be justified or not, the fact is
that such an attitude of Webster’s is rarely observable in his Dictionary.
4.4 Webster’s Invented Verbal Examples
Webster, quite differently from Johnson, very frequently supplied his invented examples in
his Dictionary. These verbal examples are often preceded by the conjunction as, and given
next to definitions. They are actually large in number. For instance, there are 13 instances
of them on a single page beginning with the entry on lapped and ending with that on
82
lark’s-heel; I estimate that there are approximate 2,000 instances of them in the L’s in his
Dictionary. The primary purpose of these verbal examples clearly lay in illustrating the
usage of entry-words. This becomes clear from the following examples in the first four sub-
entries on large:
W: LARGE, a. 1-4
1. Big; of great size; bulky; as a large body; a large horse or ox; a large mountain; a large
tree; a large ship.
2. Wide; extensive; as a large field or plain; a large extent of territory.
3. Extensive or populous; containing many inhabitants; as a large city or town.
4. Abundant; plentiful; ample; as a large supply of provisions.
At the same time, these invented phrases vividly show that Webster was well aware of the
necessity of verbal examples for the purpose of illustrating the usage of words.
Webster invented not only phrases but also sentences. Examples are:
W: LAND, n. 3.
Any small portion of the superficial part of the earth or ground. We speak of the quantity of land
in a manor. Five hundred acres of land is a large farm.
W: LATE, a. 5.
Not long past; happening not long ago; recent; as the late rains. We have received late intelligence.
W: LATELY, adv.
Not long ago; recently. We called on a gentleman who has lately arrived from Italy.
Among these examples, the one in ‘LATE, a. 5.’ indicates that invented sentences are
occasionally accompanied by invented phrases.
The following example indicates that Webster from time to time supplied his invented
sentences to illustrate the figurative meanings of words; in order to support his invented
example, Webster supplied a citation here:
W: LAMP, n. 2.
Figuratively, a light of any kind. The moon is called the lamp of heaven.
Thy gentle eyes send forth a quickening spirit,
To feed the dying lamp of life within me. Rowe.
This example partially contradicts widely accepted opinions about Webster’s lexicographic
practice. Joseph Friend, for instance, has claimed that:
Johnson prefers to rely on the illustrative quotations, for the most part literary, with which his
definitions are generously provided, to carry much of the burden; he does not always trouble
himself to spell out an obvious figurative extension of meaning. Webster, on the other hand, is
concerned to make explicit every semantic discrimination he perceives. He does not depend so
heavily on his less ample quotations [...]. (Friend 1967:41-42)
The example above signifies that this is not always the case.
83
Though not so often, Webster supplied invented phrases and sentences to illustrate his
comments on the usage of words as shown below:
W: LIABLE, a. 2.
Subject; obnoxious; exposed.
Proudly secure, yet liable to fall. Milton.
Liable, in this sense, is always applied to evils. We never say, a man is liable to happiness or
prosperity, but he is liable to disease, calamities, censure; he is liable to err, to sin, to fall.
W: LAPSE, n. 3.
A slip; an error; a fault; a failing in duty; a slight deviation from truth or rectitude.
This Scripture may be usefully applied as a caution to guard against those lapses and failings to
which our infirmities daily expose us. Rogers.
So we say, a lapse in style or propriety.
In this way, Webster often supplied his invented phrases and sentences to illustrate the
usage of words, sometimes making use of citations. About this practice, Webster himself
stated that:
In many cases, I have given brief sentences of my own; using the phrases or sentences in which the
word most frequently occurs [...]. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [45th in the “Introduction”])
Webster’s practice of supplying invented phrases and sentences reveals an aspect of his
view of verbal examples. That is, he was concerned with verbal examples contributing to
the use of the language. This can be regarded as highly scientific, and is partially in line
with the principles of modern English dictionaries, especially learners’ dictionaries. Though
he did not supply so many citations as Johnson did, Webster was never indifferent to verbal
examples.
4.5 Biblical Citations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries
4.5.1 A Problem with the Perspectives to Date
Both Johnson and Webster supplied abundant biblical citations in their dictionaries. This
has often been referred to among authorities on their dictionaries from the viewpoint of
their morality. For instance, William Wimsatt (1959:80), an authority on Johnson’s
Dictionary, has claimed that “the Dictionary [of Johnson’s] is fortified [...] by morality and
religion - by passages from the whole range of the Old and New Testaments”. David
Micklethwait (2000:186), an authority on Webster’s Dictionary, has remarked that
“Christianity is to be found in the dictionary [of Webster's] [...] in quotations from the
Bible”. In contrast to this tendency, it has been quite rare that their biblical citations are
analysed from the viewpoint of lexicographic technique. It has been widely acknowledged
that Johnson and Webster were pious Christians, respectively. Therefore, it may be natural
that their biblical citations have been regarded as reflections of their morality. However,
there is no denying that associating these citations exclusively with their morality has
84
obscured the language facts in the two dictionaries. This can be said especially about
Webster’s Dictionary. As a matter of fact, Webster supplied most of his biblical citations
induced not by his morality but by his preference to indicate the usage of entry-words in his
Dictionary. This becomes clear when Webster’s biblical citations are compared with
Johnson’s.
4.5.2 An Overview of Webster’s Practice of Supplying Biblical Citations
Joseph Reed (1962:104), referring to an abundance of biblical citations in Webster’s

Dictionary, has claimed that “Johnson had quoted liberally from the Bible, but apparently
not nearly often enough to please Webster”. This is a claim which summarizes Reed’s
recognition that Webster’s Dictionary is full of morality. His claim is apparently reasonable.
It is widely known that Webster’s major source of citations is the Bible. Herbert Morton,
for instance, has said:
[Webster] seldom thought it necessary to include illustrative quotations. When he did so from time
to time, he liked to draw on the Bible [...]. (Morton 1994:43)
Besides, it was analysed in Section 4.3.2 that Webster quoted from the Bible in first-order
frequency in the L’s in his Dictionary, while Johnson quoted from the same source in third-
order frequency within the corresponding range of his Dictionary; when the total number of
citations is taken into account, Webster’s biblical citations account for 28.8% of all
citations within the range and Johnson’s 6.7%, respectively. In spite of this situation,
however, Reed’s claim is essentially erroneous. Actually, Webster had not quoted from the
Bible as often as Reed thought. When Table 1 in Section 4.1.1 and Table 3 in Section 4.3.2
are collated, it becomes revealed that Webster quoted 182 times from the Bible and Johnson
270 times within the respective ranges of the L’s in their dictionaries. And when the
number of entries is taken into account, Webster allocated biblical citations 0.08 times per
entry, and Johnson 0.21. Thus, the fact is that Webster quoted from the Bible far less often
than Johnson. Reed’s misleading claim can be regarded as the result of his excessive
emphasis on Webster’s morality.
However, this fact means neither that Webster was simply reserved in quoting from the
Bible, nor that he almost always copied biblical citations from Johnson’s Dictionary. The
analysis of the 182 biblical citations in Webster’s Dictionary reveals that he borrowed only
71 of them from Johnson’s Dictionary. In other words, Webster excluded 199 biblical
citations in Johnson’s Dictionary and selected 111 anew by himself, signifying his unique
practice in quoting from the Bible. In the following sub-sections, I will analyse Webster’s
biblical citations from four angles: those he excluded from Johnson’s; those he added to
Johnson’s; those he substituted for Johnson’s; and those he borrowed from Johnson’s. In
these analyses, I also hope to clarify Johnson’s practice in supplying biblical citations at the
same time.
85
4.5.3 Webster’s Exclusion of Johnson’s Biblical Citations
Webster supplied biblical citations in 92 entries and Johnson in 127 within the respective
ranges of the L’s in their dictionaries. The table below shows in what types of entries the
two lexicographers supplied the citations. The figures here indicate the number of biblical
citations; the letters J and W indicate Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s, respectively; and
the spellings of entry-words and the abbreviations of parts of speech are based on
Webster’s except for the case where there are entries in which only Johnson supplied
biblical citations.

in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries
Entry-words J W Entry-words J W Entry-words J W

labor, n. 1 1 leaved, a. 1 --- lintel, n. 1 ---
labor, v.i. 5 4 leaven, n. 1 1 list, v.i. --- 1
labor, v.t. 1 --- leaven, v.t. 1 1 listen, v.i. 1 ---
lack, v.t. 1 1 led, pret./ pp. 2 --- little, a. 3 1
lack, v.i. 3 2 legion, n. --- 1 little, a. 2 ---
lack, n. --- 1 lend, v.t. 1 --- little, adv. 1 ---
lade, v.t. 1 1 lender, n. --- 1 live, v.i. 4 5
laid, pret./ 1 --- lengthen, v.t. 1 --- live, a. 1 ---
pp.
lain, pp. 1 --- lentil, n. 1 --- living, n. 1 1
Lamb, n. --- 1 leper, n. 1 --- living, n. --- 2
Lament, v.i. 3 1 leprosy, n. 1 --- lo, exclam. --- 2
Lamentation, 1 1 leprous, n. --- 1 load, v.t. 1 ---
n.
Lance, n. 1 --- less, a. 1 2 loathe, v.t. 1 ---
Land, n. --- 1 less, n. 2 --- locust, n. 1 ---
Landmark, n. --- 1 lesser, a. --- 1 lodge, v.i. 2 ---
Languish, v.i. 2 3 lesson, n. 1 1 loftily, adv. 1 1
lap, v.i. --- 1 lest, con. 1 2 lofty, a. --- 1
Lapful, n. 1 --- let, v.t. 11 3 log, n. 1 ---
Large, a. 2 --- letter, n. 2 --- long, a. 10 1
Lascivious- --- 1 leviathan, n. 1 --- long, adv. 5 3
ness, n.
last, n. 1 --- levy, v.t. 1 --- long, v.i. 1 3
last, a. --- 1 liberally, adv. 1 1 long- 1 1
suffering, a.
Latchet, n. 1 --- license, n. 2 --- long- --- 1
suffering, n.
Lately, adv. 1 --- lick, v.t. 1 2 look, v.i. 9 7
Lattice, n. 1 1 lie, v.i. 2 1 look, v.t. 1 ---
Laugh, v.t. 1 1 lie, v.i. 11 3 look, n.s. 1 ---
Laughter, n. --- 1 lien, 1 --- loose, v.t. 9 9
participle.
Launch, v.i. 1 --- lier, n. 1 --- loose, v.i. 1 1
86

in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries (continued)

law, n. --- 4 life, n. 1 6 loose, a. 3 ---
Lawful, a. 1 --- lift, v.t. 5 4 lord, n. --- 1
lay, pret. 1 1 lifter, n. 1 --- lordship, n. 1 1
lay, v.t. 30 12 light, n. 3 11 lose, v.t. 2 2
lay, v.i. 1 1 light, a. 3 1 loss, n. 1 ---
lead, v.t. 1 --- light, v.i. 3 3 lot, n. 1 2
lead, v.t. 6 2 lighten, v.i. 1 --- lothe, v.t. --- 2
lead, v.i. 1 1 lighten, v.t. 1 2 loud, a. 1 1
Leader, n. 1 --- light-minded, 1 1 love, v.t. 2 1
a.
leaf, n. 1 --- lignaloes, n. 1 --- love, n. 5 1
League, n. 2 --- ligure, n. 1 --- lovely, a. 1 1
lean, v.i. 1 1 like, a. 2 5 loving, ppr. 1 ---
lean, a. 1 --- like, adv. 2 3 loving- 1 1
kindnes, n.
leanness, n. --- 1 like, v.t. 1 --- louse, n. 1 ---
leap, v.i. 4 1 like, v.i. 1 --- low, a. 1 ---
learn, v.t. 2 1 liken, v.t. --- 1 low, v.i. 1 ---
learn, v.i. 1 1 likewise, adv. 1 1 lowliness, n. --- 1
leasing, n. 1 --- liking, a. 1 --- lowly, a. 1 2
least, a. 1 1 liking, n. 1 1 lucre, n. --- 1
leather, n. 1 --- limit, n. 1 --- lurk, v.i. 1 1
leave, n. --- 1 limit, v.t. 1 1 lurking- 1 ---
place, n.
leave, v.t. 8 4 lineage, n. 1 --- lust, n. 2 1
leave, v.i. 2 1 linger, v.i. --- 1 lying, ppr. 1 ---
This table shows that Johnson supplied his biblical citations in a wide variety of entries.
The entries are sometimes on words of daily use, and sometimes on encyclopaedic words
such as technical terms and the names of animals and plants. In contrast to this, Webster
selected a relatively small number of entries in which biblical citations should be supplied.
He excluded Johnson’s biblical citations in 61 entries. A large proportion of the 61 entries
are divided into three types: entries on encyclopaedic words, those on inflected forms of
verbs and those treating obsolete usage of words. I will discuss the three types below in this
order.
(1) Webster’s Exclusion of Biblical Citations Supplied in Entries on Encyclopaedic Words

Johnson supplied biblical citations in entries on encyclopaedic words such as lance, latchet,
leather, lentil, letter, leviathan, lignaloes, ligure, lintel, locust, louse, lurking-place, etc.
Webster disregarded most of the biblical citations there. Some of the entry-words are
closely related to Christianity. Johnson quoted from the Biblefor the words as follows:
87
J: LATCHET. n.s.
The string that fastens the shoe.
There cometh one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. Mark
i. 7.
J: LIGURE, n.s.
A precious stone.
The third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. Exod.
J: LEVIATHAN. n.s.
A water animal mentioned in the book of Job. By some imagined the crocodile, but in poetry
generally taken for the whale.
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? Job.
Even in these entries, Webster supplied no biblical citation; he only indicated the sources
for reference:
W: LATCHET, n.
The string that fastens a shoe. Mark i.
W: LIGURE, n.
A kind of precious stone. Ex. xxviii.
W: LEVIATHAN, n.
An aquatic animal, described in the book of Job, ch. xli, and mentioned in other passages of
Scripture. In Isaiah, it is called the crooked serpent. It is not agreed what animal is intended by the
writers, whether the crocodile, the whale, or a species of serpent.
Since the situation is thus, Webster’s Dictionary can hardly be expected to function as a
scriptural glossary as compared to Johnson’s.
(2) Webster’s Exclusion of Biblical Citations Supplied in Entries on Inflected Forms of

Verbs in Johnson’s Dictionary
Webster basically disregarded Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on inflected forms of
verbs, specifically, the entries on laid, lain, led, lien, loving and lying. The following
examples show how Johnson treated this type of word:
J: LAID.Preterite participle of lay.

[No definition is given in this entry. K.M.]
Money laid up for the relief of widows and fatherless children. 2 Mac. iii. 10.
J: LAIN.Preterite participle of lye.

Mary seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the
body of Jesus had lain. John xx. 12.
Webster did not indicate even the sources of biblical passages as follows:
88
W: LAID, pret. and pp. of lay;

so written for layed.
W: LAIN, pp. of lie.

Lien would be a more regular orthography, but lain is generally used.
(3) Webster’s Exclusion of Biblical Citations Supplied in Entries for the Treatment of
Obsolete Usage of Words
When Webster thought that Johnson supplied biblical citations to illustrate obsolete usage
of words, he generally excluded them. For instance, Johnson quoted from the Bible in the
entry on leasing in this way:
J: LEASING. n.s.
Lies; falsehood.
O ye sons of men, how long will ye have such pleasure in vanity, and seek after leasing? Psal.
iv. 2.
Webster changed the contents of this entry as follows:
W: LEASING, n.s as z.
Falsehood; lies. [Obsolete or nearly so.]
Webster’s reluctance to illustrate such obsolete usage by means of biblical citations can be
more clearly observed in the following example. Here, he borrowed Johnson’s citation from
Bacon and disregarded a citation from the Bible:
J: LIKE. v.a. 3.
To please; to be agreeable to. Now disused.
This desire being recommended to her majesty, it liked her to include the same within one
entire lease. Bacon
He shall dwell where it liketh him best. Deut. xxiii. 16.
----------
W: LIKE, v.t. 2.
To please; to be agreeable to.
This desire being recommended to her majesty, it liked her to include the same within one
entire lease. Obs. Bacon.
The following examples concern both inflected forms of verbs and obsolete usage of words:
J: LIEN. the participle of lie.

One of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife. Gen. xxvi. 10.
----------
W: LIEN, the obsolete participle of lie.
89
Without appreciating the noticeable tendencies in Webster's selection of biblical citations as

revealed in Table 4 beforehand, his unique practice as above, which will be regarded as
exemplifying the tendencies, may be passed over or thought to be a reflection of his state of
mind when writing the entries.
I have thus far analysed Webster’s practice in his exclusion of Johnson’s biblical
citations. It may safely be said that Webster usually thought it unnecessary to quote from
the Bible for words which needed little instruction in terms of grammar and usage at his
time. Incidentally, Webster did not exclude Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on
infinitives of verbs, which is also reflected in Table 4.
4.5.4 Webster’s Addition of Biblical Citations
Though supplying a far smaller number of biblical citations than Johnson, Webster quoted
111 phrases and sentences from the Bible which are not seen in the entries within the range
of the L’s in Johnson’s Dictionary. Table 4 in the preceding sub-section partially reflects
the situation; Webster selected entries anew to supply 26 biblical citations of his choice.
However, the situation of the remaining 85 citations cannot be inferred from the table.
Because of this reason, it is necessary to produce another type of table which shows how
Webster quoted directly from the Bible without referring to Johnson’s Dictionary. In the
following Table, the letter ‘N’, which stands for ‘new’, indicates the number of biblical
citations Webster uniquely supplied in the respective entries.
Table 5: Biblical Citations from the Original Source in Entries on Words

for the Letter L in Webster's Dictionary
Entry-words N Entry-words N Entry-words N Entry-words N

labor, n. 1 leaness, n. 1 life, n. 6 look, v.i. 4
labor, v.i. 4 leap, v.i. 1 lift, v.t. 3 loose, v.t. 3
lack, v.t. 1 least, a. 1 light, n. 8 loose, v.i. 1
lack, v.i. 1 leave, n. 1 lighten, v.t. 2 lord, n. 1
lack, n. 1 leave, v.t. 2 like, a. 4 lose, v.t. 1
lamb, n. 1 leaven, n. 1 like, adv. 1 lot, n. 2
lamentation, n. 1 leaven, v.t. 1 liken, v.t. 1 lothe, v.t. 2
land, n. 1 legion, n. 1 likewise, adv. 1 love, v.t. 1
landmark, n. 1 lender, n. 1 linger, v.i. 1 love, n. 1
languish, v.i. 2 leprous, n. 1 list, v.i. 1 loving- 1
kindness, n.
lap, v.i. 1 less, n. 2 live, v.i. 4 lowliness, n. 1
lasciviousness, n. 1 lesser, adj. 1 living, n. 1 lowly, adj. 1
laughter, n. 1 lest, conj. 2 lo, interj. 2 lucre, n. 1
law, n. 4 let, v.t. 2 lofty, adj. 1 lust, v.i. 4
lay, v.t. 4 lick, v.t. 1 long, v.i. 3 ----- -
lead, v.t. 1 lie, v.i. 2 long-suffering, n. 1 ----- -
90
This table shows that Webster usually selected biblical citations by himself in entries on
words of high frequency.
Out of the 111 citations Webster took directly from the Bible, there are 7 which
manifestly concern biblical English. They are supplied in the entries on lamb, leanness, life,
lift, light, live and loving-kindness. Webster clearly indicated that the 7 citations are
related to biblical English. Examples are:
W: LAMB, n. 2.
The Lamb of God, in Scripture, the Savior Jesus Christ, who was typified by the paschal lamb.
Behold the lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. John i.
W: LOVING-KINDNESS, n.
Tender regard; mercy; favor; a scriptural word.
My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him. Ps. lxxxix.
This kind of indication can rarely be seen in Johnson’s Dictionary. In the L’s in his
Dictionary, Johnson used such labelling only in the entry on loving-kindness:
J: LOVINGKINDNESS.
Tenderness; favour; mercy. A scriptural word.
Webster’s clear-cut indications attached to the 7 citations mentioned above signify that he
differentiated the citations from other biblical citations. In other words, there is probability
that the remaining 104 of his selection are supplied for the instruction of English usage. The
contents of the following sub-entries strengthens this probability:
W: LEAVE, n. 1.
Permission; allowance; license; liberty granted by which restraint or illegality is removed.
No friend has leave to bear away the dead. Dryden.
David earnestly asked leave of me. 1 Sam. xx.
W: LEGION, n. 3.
A great number.
Where one sin has entered, legions will force their way through the same breach. Rogers.
My name is legion, for we are many. Mark v.
In these sub-entries, citations from the Bible are supplied together with those from works of
men of letters, and no distinction is made between the two types of citations. This practice
is also seen in some other entries and sub-entries such as ‘LESSER, a.’, ‘LIGHT, n. 7.’,
‘LAP, v.i.’, ‘LAY, v.t. 1.’, ‘LEAVE, n. 1.’, ‘LEGION, n. 3.’, ‘LET, v.t. 4.’ ‘LIKE, a. 2.’,
‘LIKE, a. 3.’, ‘LINGER, v.i. 1.’, ‘LIST, v.i.’, ‘LORD, n. 3.’, ‘LOT, n. 3.’, ‘LOTHE, v.t. 1.’,
‘LOTHE, v.t. 2.’ and ‘LUCRE, n.’.
As a matter of fact, Webster often quoted from the Bible, remarking on English usage.
Some examples are:
91
W: LAY, v.t. 1.
Literally, to throw down; hence, to put or place; applied to things broad or long, and in this respect
differing from set. We lay a book on the table, when we place it on its side, but we set it on the end.
We lay the foundation of a house, but we set a building on its foundation.
He laid his robe from him. Jonah iii.
A stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den. Dan. vi.
W: LIVE, v.i. 3.
To be animated; to have the vital principle; to have the bodily functions in operation, or in a
capacity to operate, as respiration, circulation of blood, secretions, &c.; applied to animals.
I am Joseph; doth my father yet live ? Gen. xlv.
W: LO, exclam.
Look; see; behold; observe. This word is used to excite particular attention in a hearer to some
object of sight, or subject of discourse.
Lo, here is Christ. Matt. xxiv.
Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Acts xiii.
Among these examples, the usage note and the biblical citations given in ‘LAY, v.t. 1.’ are
particularly notable. In this sub-entry, Webster mentioned the difference between the sense
of set and that of lay. This signifies that Webster supplied the citations from Jonah. and
Dan. there genuinely from the viewpoint of English usage.
The following are entries in which Webster commented on prepositional usage,
illustrating them by means of biblical citations:
W: LIKE, a. 2.
Like is usually followed by to or unto, but it is often omitted.
What city is like unto this great city? Rev. xviii.
I saw three unclean spirits like frogs. Rev. xvi.
Among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Dan. i.
W: LUST, v.i. 1.
To desire eagerly; to long; with after.
Thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. Deut. xii.
In this way, when biblical citations of Webster’s own choice are observed, it gradually
becomes clear that he often supplied them for the instruction of English usage, irrelevantly
to his morality and terminology specific to the Bible.
4.5.5 Webster’s Biblical Citations Substituted for Johnson’s
Webster did more than adding biblical citations of his own choice. He often substituted
them for Johnson’s.
When Webster’s biblical citations and Johnson’s are not the same in the entries
corresponding to each other, and the entries are not divided into sub-entries, this means that
Webster substituted his biblical citations for Johnson’s. There are three such cases in the
92
L’s; they are seen in the entries on least, lest and likewise. Firstly, the following is the
contents of the entries on least in the two dictionaries:
J: LEAST. adj. the superlative of little.

Little beyond others; smallest.
I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies shewed to thy servant. Gen. xxxii. 10.
----------
W: LEAST, a.
Least is often used without the noun to which it refers. “I am the least of the apostles,” that is, the
least apostle of all the apostles. 1 Cor. xv.
Webster here commented on the usage of least by means of his biblical citation.
Additionally, the citation from 1. Cor. here is even paraphrased in Webster’s words. It is
clear that Webster supplied the citation based on his view of the usage of least rather than
his morality. Secondly, the respective entries on lest in the two dictionaries are as follows:
J: LEST. conj.
That not.
Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; lest if he should exceed, then thy brother should
seem vile. Deut. xxv.
----------
W: LEST, con.
That not; for fear that.
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Gen. iii.
The phrase may be thus explained. Ye shall not touch it; that separated or dismissed, ye die. That
here refers to the preceding command or sentence; that being removed or not observed, the fact
being not so, ye will die.
Sin no more, lest a worse thing come to thee. John. v.
In this entry, Webster evidently supplied a biblical citation to illustrate his grammatical
explanation. Thirdly, the situation of the entries on likewise is as follows:
J: LIKEWISE. adv.
In like manner; also; moreover; too.
Jesus said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you
by what authority I do these things. Mat. xxi. 24.
----------
W: LIKEWISE, adv.
In like manner; also; moreover; too.
For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their
wealth to others. Ps. xlix.
Here, Webster provided neither usage notes nor grammatical explanation with the citation.
The reason why he substituted his citation for Johnson’s in the entry may be that Johnson’s
citation is rather complicated. Johnson’s includes a reporting verb and is composed of five
clauses. In contrast to this, Webster’s is structurally simple and composed of three clauses.
There are still other cases where Webster substituted his biblical citations for Johnson’s.
When Johnson’s definitions and Webster’s are essentially the same and they supplied
93
different biblical citations from each other under such definitions, Webster’s citations are
regarded as substitutions for Johnson’s. Such cases are seen in the entries on leap, long and
loose, the contents of which will be investigated one by one. Firstly, the following are the
contents of the entries on leap in the two dictionaries:
J: To LEAP. v.n. 2.
To rush with vehemence.
God changed the spirit of the king into mildness, who in a fear leaped from his throne, and took
her in his arms, till she came to herself again. Esth. xv. 8.
----------
W: LEAP, v.i. 3.
To rush with violence.
And the man in whom the evil spirit was, leaped on them and overcame them -- Acts xix.
Webster’s citation in this entry is shorter than Johnson’s. We can confirm here again that
Webster valued the conciseness of biblical citations. Secondly, in the entry on long,
Webster substituted his citations for Johnson’s from a genuinely grammatical viewpoint:
J: To LONG. v.n.
To desire earnestly; to wish with eagerness continued, with for or after before the thing desired.
And thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them. Deut. xxviii. 32.
----------
W: LONG, v.i. 1.
To desire earnestly or eagerly.
I long to see you. Rom. i.
I have longed after thy precepts. Ps. cxix.
I have longed for thy salvation. Ps. cxix.
Here, Johnson remarked on prepositions to be used with long; therefore his citation can be
regarded as an illustration of the remark. Webster did the same. However, Webster
preferred to supply short citations from the Bible, including the phrases long after and long
for. Thirdly, the citations in the respective entries on loose were supplied in this way:
J: To LOOSE. v.a. 1.
To unbind; to untie any thing fastened.
The shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose. Acts.
Who is worthy to loose the seals thereof. Rev. v. 2.
----------
W: LOOSE, v.t. 1.
To untie or unbind; to free from any fastening.
Ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them to me. Matt. xxi.
Unlike others, Webster’s citation here is longer than Johnson’s. The reason why he supplied
this citation is probably that it contains tie, an antonym of loose. It can be said that Webster
tried to contrast loose with tie so that the sense of loose might be grasped easily; this
citation seems to be in tune with his definition containing the phrase “To untie or unbind”.
In consequence, Webster’s Puritanism is hardly observable in his biblical citations
substituted for Johnson’s. Instead, the citations clearly reveal his view of English usage.
94
4.5.6 Webster’s Biblical Citations Borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary
As analysed in Section 4.5.2, Webster borrowed 71 biblical citations of Johnson’s in the L’s
in his Dictionary. Webster, however, did not necessarily incorporate the 71 citations as they
were. There are three tendencies in his practice of incorporating Johnson’s biblical
citations: Webster shortened many of Johnson’s citations; he occasionally made use of
them for purposes different from Johnson’s; and there are times when he partially modified
them based on his view of English usage. In this sub-section, the analysis will be made in
accordance with these three tendencies.
(1) Webster’s Abbreviation of Johnson’s Biblical Citations

Webster shortened 23 biblical citations out of the 71 which he borrowed from the L’s in
Johnson’s Dictionary. When Johnson’s citations are composed of compound sentences,
Webster’s usual practice was to extract one clause from each. Examples are:
J: To LAMENT. v.n.
To mourn; to wail; to grieve; to express sorrow.
Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing-men and women spake of Josiah in their
lamentations. 2 Chron.
----------
W: LAMENT, v.i.
To mourn; to grieve; to weep or wail; to express sorrow.
Jeremiah lamented for Josiah. 2. Chron. xxxv.
J: To LAY. v.a. 19.

To apply nearly.
She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. Prov. xxxi. 19.
----------
W: LAY, v.t. 14.
To put; to apply.
She layeth her hand to the spindle. Prov. xxxi.
In this light, it may well be said that the following example indicates that Webster was
concerned little with the religious implication of biblical citations:
J: LOVELY. adj.
Amiable; exciting love.
Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not
divided. 2 Sam. i. 23.
----------
W: LOVELY, a.
Amiable; that may excite love; possessing qualities which may invite affection.
Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives – 2 Sam. i.
Webster sometimes did not hesitate to eliminate the middle of sentences as the following
example shows:
95
J: LIGHT. n.s. 4.
Reach of knowledge; mental view.
Light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him. Dan. v.
11.
----------
W: LIGHT, n. 7.
Illumination of mind; instruction; knowledge.
Light, understanding and wisdom – was found in him. Dan. v.
As seen in the examples here, Webster often tried to make biblical citations as simple as
possible in terms of sentence structure. Webster borrowed 47 of Johnson’s citations as they
are. Many of the 47 citations are composed of one or two clauses; 13 are of one clause and
21 are of two clauses. Few citations are composed of more than two clauses; there are 6
citations composed of three clauses, and only 2 composed of four clauses. The remaining
citations are not of sentences but of phrases such as the following:
J: LONGSUFFERING. adj.
Patient; not easily provoked.
The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness. Exod. xxxiv. 6.
----------
W: LONGSUFFERING, a.
Bearing injuries or provocation for a long time; patient; not easily provoked.
The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness. Ex. xxxiv.
(2) Webster’s Unique Use of Johnson’s Biblical Citations

Webster occasionally made use of Johnson’s biblical citations for purposes different from
Johnson’s. In this occasion, Webster’s practice of borrowing Johnson’s biblical citations
reveals his unique view of idioms, prepositional usage and the senses of some words.
Firstly, the following example concerns Webster’s view of idioms:
J: To LAY. v.a. 37: To LAY down.

To commit to repose.
I will lay me down in peace and sleep. Psal. xlviii.
----------
W: LAY, v.t.: To lay one’s self down,
to commit to repose.
I will both lay me down in peace and sleep - Ps. iv.
In this example, while Johnson supplied a citation from Psal. to illustrate the idiom of lay
down, Webster made use of it to illustrate lay one’s self down; Webster is thought to have
had an idea that an object of lay is necessary before down. In the following example, while
Johnson supplied a biblical citation including at last in the entry on the word last as a noun,
Webster supplied the citation in the entry on the same word but as an adjective:
J: LAST. n.s. 6: At LAST.

In conclusion; at the end.
Gad, a troop shall overcome him: but he shall overcome at the last. Gen. xlix. 19.
----------
96
W: LAST. a.: At last, at the last,

at the end; in the conclusion.
Gad, a troop shall overcome him; but he shall overcome at the last. Gen. xlix.
Webster provided a sub-entry for the idiom let down, which had not been Johnson’s
practice. In this sub-entry, Webster incorporated Johnson’s biblical citation which had been
supplied in a sub-entry irrelevant to idioms.
J: LET. v.a. 10.

To suffer any thing to take a course which requires no impulsive violence.
She let them down by a cord through the window. Josh.
----------
W: LET, v.t.: To let down,
to permit to sink or fall; to lower.
She let them down by a cord through the window. Josh. ii.
Secondly, Webster made use of Johnson’s citations to indicate prepositional usage. In the
following sub-entries, Johnson supplied biblical citations without any usage notes:
J: To LEARN. v.n.
To take pattern.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly. Mat. xi. 29.
J: To LIGHT. v.n. 2.
To descend from a horse or carriage.
When Naaman saw him running after him, he lighted down from the chariot to meet him. 2
Kings v. 21.
Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. Gen. xxiv. 64.
Webster borrowed these citations and added a usage note to each of them as follows:
W: LEARN, v.i.
To gain or receive knowledge; to receive instruction; to take pattern; with of.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly --. Matt. xi.
W: LIGHT, v.i. 3.
To descend, as from a horse or carriage; with down, off, or from.
He lighted down from his chariot. 2 Kings v.
She lighted off the camel. Gen. xxiv.
Thirdly, Webster’s biblical citations show that he sometimes discriminated the senses of
words more in detail than Johnson. In the entry on loose in Johnson’s Dictionary, there is a
sub-entry in which he supplied 2 biblical citations under one definition:
J: To LOOSE. v.a. 1.
To unbind; to untie any thing fastened.
Canst thou loose the bands of Orion. Job xxxviii. 31.
Who is worthy to loose the seals thereof. Rev. v. 2.
97
Webster separated the citations and made use of them to illustrate the senses of loose which
are different from each other:
W: LOOSE, v.t. 1.
To untie or unbind; to free from any fastening.
Canst thou loose the bands of Orion? Job xxxviii.
W: LOOSE, v.t. 9.
To open.
Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? Rev. v.
This example indicates that Webster thought that loose had the sense equivalent to that of
open, which Johnson did not mention; in the whole of the entry on loose in his Dictionary,
Johnson did not refer to this sense. It may be noted, in passing, that Webster supplied a
citation from Job xxxviii above in the sub-entry ‘LOOSE, v.t. 1’ together with the citation
“Ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them to me. Matt. xxi”
which I referred to at the end of Section 4.5.5; this exemplifies that he regarded loose in the
two citations as having the same sense.
(3) Webster’s Modification of Johnson’s Biblical Citations

Though not so often, there are times when Webster partially modified Johnson’s biblical
citations based on his view of English usage. One example is seen in the entry on lay:
J: To LAY. v.a. 20.

To add; to conjoin.
Wo unto them that lay field to field. Isa. v. 8.
----------
W: LAY, v.t. 13.
To add; to join.
Wo to them that join house to house, that lay field to field. Is. v.
This is a rare example in that Webster lengthened Johnson’s biblical citation. Concerning
the first clause of the sentence, Webster’s citation is different from Johnson’s in two
respects; he replaced unto and lay in Johnson’s with to and join. Which of Webster’s and
Johnson’s is in accord with the original clause? The answer is neither of them. The
corresponding part in the AV reads:
Woe vnto them that ioyne house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they
may be placed alone in the midst of the earth.
The difference between the wording in the AV and that in Johnson’s citation can be
regarded as the result of Johnson’s clerical error. Why, then, did Webster change unto to
to? The entry on unto in Webster’s Dictionary implies that this change was caused not by
Webster’s mistake but by his view of English usage. In this entry, Webster said about unto
as follows:
98
[...] a compound of un, [on,] and to; of no use in the language, as it expresses no more than to. I
do not find it in our mother tongue, nor is it ever used in popular discourse. It is found in writers of
former times, but is entirely obsolete.
It was already analysed in Section 4.5.3 that Webster excluded Johnson’s biblical citations
which Johnson had used to illustrate obsolete usage of words. It can be said that in quoting
from the Bible, Webster was swayed by the temptation to modernize archaic and obsolete
wording included in it. There are two other examples of the same kind. One of them is as
follows:
J: To LEAN. v.n. 2.
To propend; to tend towards.
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Prov. iii. 5.
----------
W: LEAN, v.i. 2.
To incline or propend; to tend toward.
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding. Prov. iii.
In this example, Webster replaced unto after not with to. The preposition in the AV is unto:
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and leane not vnto thine owne vnderstanding.
The remaining example of Webster’s modification is as follows:
J: To LOSE. v.a. 3.
To suffer deprivation of.
If salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Matt. v. 13.
----------
W:LOSE, v.t. 6.
To suffer diminution or waste of.
If the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? Matt. v.
The AV reads:
But if the salt haue lost his sauour, wherewith shall it bee salted?
Webster here replaced have and his in the AV with hath and its, respectively. Evidently,
Webster modified biblical English so that it may accord with the contemporary usage. In
conjunction with this modification, it will be beneficial to refer to Thomas Pyles’s
following opinion:
He [Webster] had long been troubled by the bad grammar of the English Bible, such as its use of
his for its, as in “If the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted?” (It is not surprising
that its, which appears first in writing in 1594, was not used in 1611 by linguistically conservative
theologians) [...]. (Pyles 1954:95)
This opinion is not about the citation in the entry on lose in Webster’s Dictionary but about
his version of the English Bible; there is no knowing whether Pyles was aware of the
99
citation when he remarked as above. Webster published his version of the Bible in 1833,
five years after his Dictionary. His citation from Matt. in the sub-entry ‘Lose, v.t.6.’
indicates that Webster had been rewriting the AV, compiling his Dictionary. The citation
also indicates that his view of English grammar motivated him to rewrite the Bible. In this
sense, Pyles’s opinion expressed from a linguistic viewpoint can be justified. By contrast,
David Micklethwait seems to have thought that Webster had rewritten the Bible thoroughly
induced by his morality, and that Webster’s major purpose of his version of the Bible had
been to eliminate inappropriate words in terms of morality; Micklethwait (2000:191) has
claimed that “Webster was particularly sensitive to rude words, and when he had finished
work on the dictionary he set about expurgating the Bible”. When Webster’s modification
of the sentence in the Bibleabove is taken into account, this assumption of Micklethwait’s
can hardly be justified.
Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s are both characterized by an abundance of biblical

citations. However, there are some distinctive differences between Johnson and Webster in
their use of phrases and sentences from the Bible.
As for Johnson, he generously supplied biblical citations in his Dictionary. He quoted
from the Bible to illustrate the senses of words in general, and to provide encyclopaedic
information. On the other hand, Webster had clear criteria in quoting from the Bible. He
basically did not supply biblical citations to illustrate the usage and senses of obsolete
words and to provide encyclopaedic information. Instead, Webster frequently made use of
biblical citations to illustrate his explanation of contemporary usage. The number of
Webster’s biblical citations is far smaller than that of Johnson’s. However, the small
number can be regarded as evidence of his careful selection of the citations. There is a
passage in which Webster mentioned his practice of quoting from the Bible. In the
“Introduction” to his Dictionary, he stated:
Under words which occur in the scriptures, I have often cited passages from our common version,
not only to illustrate the scriptural or theological sense, but even the ordinary significations of the
words. These passages are short, plain, appropriate, and familiar to most readers. (Webster 1828: n.
This statement is partially true and partially untrue. It is true that Webster’s biblical
citations are short and plain; they are usually much shorter and plainer than Johnson’s. It is,
however, untrue that he quoted from the common version of the Bible used among
Americans at his time; he sometimes modified the original biblical phrases and sentences to
make the wording in them suitable to the customary use of the language. It can now be
concluded that Webster quoted from the Bible mainly for the purpose of improving English
usage among Americans; for the sake of this purpose, he made full use of the American
educational situation at his time which placed special emphasis on religious education. As
he said in the passage above, many of his biblical citations are thought to have been
familiar to most Americans, at least compared with Johnson’s. This must have been
100
beneficial for Americans to improve their English, though it may not have been adequate
for religious education.
5: Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency
and the Inflected Forms of Such Verbs
5.1 Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency
5.1.1 An Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Verbs of High Frequency
Verbs of high frequency are characterized by a wide range of senses. For this reason, both
Johnson and Webster divided entries on this type of word into a considerable number of
sub-entries. Accordingly, they also supplied a much larger number of citations in the entries
than in others. The following table shows the situation. This is based on the results of the
analysis of relevant entries with the exception of sub-entries provided for idioms in them.
The ‘relevant entries’ referred to here are entries on verbs of high frequency which I
mentioned in Section 2.4, principal verbs included in the verbs Johnson (1755: n. pag. [5th
(par. 45) in the “Preface”]) enumerated as examples of “verbs too frequent in the English
language”. Here, the spellings of entry-words and the abbreviations of parts of speech are
Webster’s; and the letters ‘S’ and ‘C’ indicate the number of sub-entries and citations,
respectively.
Table 6: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency

Johnson Webster Johnson Webster

Entry-words S C S C Entry-words S C S C
bear, v.t. 32 69 20 7 make, v.t. 30 103 31 16
bear, v.i. 9 20 6 4 make, v.i. 4 29 3 ---
break, v.t. 22 47 23 2 put, v.t. 21 82 14 10
break, v.i. 12 38 13 3 put, v.i. 3 4 3 2
cast, v.t. 31 69 25 11 set, v.t. 26 125 29 20
cast, v.i. 3 9 4 4 set, v.i. 11 21 8 2
come, v.i. 15 48 9 12 run, v.i. 43 91 56 22
fall, v.i. 36 88 28 22 run, v.t. 10 25 13 6
fall, v.t. 4 7 5 --- take, v.t. 66 169 40 22
get, v.t. 17 54 6 2 take, v.i. 4 10 4 4
get, v.n./v.i. 9 49 1 --- throw, v.t. 13 31 10 3
give, v.t. 22 62 23 11 throw, v.i. 2 1 2 ---
give, v.i. 3 7 3 1 turn, v.t. 34 66 32 16
go, v.i. 49 128 39 16 turn. v.i. 20 44 17 6
This table indicates that Johnson provided 19.7 sub-entries on average per entry and
Webster 16.7 within the respective ranges of entries on verbs of high frequency. It has often
been said that Johnson divided entries into a considerable number of sub-entries based on
the senses of entry-words. This is true in most cases. Daisuke Nagashima (1983:191-192),
102
for instance, found that in some entries the number of sub-entries in Johnson’s Dictionary
is larger than that in the OED. As far as entries on verbs of high frequency are concerned,
however, it is also interesting that Webster sometimes detailed the senses of entry-words
more than Johnson. To be specific, Table 6 shows that Webster divided 9 entries out of 28
into more sub-entries than Johnson: break (v.t), break (v.i.), cast (v.i.), fall (v.t.), give (v.t.),
make (v.t.), set (v.t.), run (v.i.) and run (v.t.). As to the entry on run (v.i.), especially,
Webster provided 56 sub-entries in it, compared with Johnson’s counterpart of 43.
In respect of the number of citations, it was confirmed in Section 4.1.1 that Johnson
allocated 4,047 citations in all in 1,310 entries on words for the letter L; this means that
Johnson usually allocated 3.1 citations on average per entry. As for Webster, the analysis in
Section 4.3.2 revealed that he usually allocated 0.3 citations on average per entry. In entries
on verbs of high frequency, on the other hand, the perusal of Table 6 shows that Johnson
allocated 1,496 citations in 28 entries, compared to Webster’s 224 for the same number of
entries. This means that Johnson allocated 53.4 citations on average per entry in contrast to
Webster’s 8.0 here; the former allocated citations 17 times more frequently than usual, and
the latter 27 times. In this way, it is found that both lexicographers divided entries on verbs
of high frequency into a considerable number of sub-entries, supplying quite a large
number of citations in them. However, this does not mean that Johnson and Webster treated
this type of word identically.
In order to determine the differences between the two lexicographers in this respect, it
becomes necessary in the first place to investigate how they recognized verbs of high
frequency. As for Johnson, he seems to have been greatly troubled by the treatment of these
verbs. This is because he tried to tackle them with a normative attitude. In the “Preface” to
his Dictionary, Johnson stated:
My labour has [...] been much increased by a class of verbs too frequent in the English language,
of which the signification is so loose and general, the use so vague and indeterminate [...].
In addition to the point expressed in this passage, the mutability of the senses of the verbs
also troubled him:
[...] and the senses [of verbs of high frequency] detorted so widely from the first idea, that it is
hard to trace them through the maze of variation, to catch them on the brink of utter inanity, to
circumscribe them by any limitations, or interpret them by any words of distinct and settled
meaning [...]. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 45) in the “Preface”])
For these reasons, Johnson had to make an excuse to the readers of his Dictionary for his
probable failure in the treatment of the verbs:
If of these the whole power is not accurately delivered, it must be remembered, that while our
language is yet living, and variable by the caprice of every one that speaks it, these words are
hourly shifting their relations, and can no more be ascertained in a dictionary, than a grove, in the
agitation of a storm, can be accurately delineated from its picture in the water. (Johnson 1755: n.
103
This statement reveals the distress of the lexicographer who aimed to stabilize the senses of
the verbs, but, at the same time, became aware of their irresistible mutability. Johnson’s
distress is reflected in the definitions given in some sub-entries on this type of verb.
Examples are:
J: To BEAR. v.a. 1.
This is a word used with such latitude, that it is not easily explained.
J: To BREAK. v.n. 27.

It is to be observed of this extensive and perplexed verb, that, in all its significations, whether
active or neutral, it has some reference to its primitive meaning, by implying either detriment,
suddenness, or violence.
J: To GO. v.n. 68.

The senses of this word are very indistinct: its general notion is motion or progress.
In Webster’s case, on the other hand, he was free from such distress; he was not a
lexicographer who felt so much necessity to stabilize the senses of the verbs. In the
“Preface” and the “Introduction” to his Dictionary, as well as in relevant entries, there is
not the slightest evidence to suggest Webster’s trouble in treating such verbs.
There is another noticeable difference between the two lexicographers in the treatment of
the type of verb. This is observed in the structure of entries on the verbs. In Johnson’s case,
he generally did nothing more than simply divide the entries into sub-entries based on their
senses, and in the respective sub-entries he usually gave definitions one by one separately
from one another. For this reason, each of the sub-entries is basically independent of and
not interrelated with others. For instance, the definitions in the first three sub-entries on
break (v.a.) in Johnson’s Dictionary are as follows:
J: To BREAK. v.a. 1-3.

1. To part by violence.
2. To burst, or open by force.
3. To pierce; to divide, as light divides darkness.
Likewise, some of Johnson’s definitions in the sub-entries on make (v.a.) are as follows:
J: To MAKE. v.a. 1-3.

1. To create.
2. To form of materials.
3. To compose: as, materials or ingredients.
This may be called a prototype of a technique for the treatment of verbs of high frequency
in English dictionaries.
Compared with this practice of Johnson’s, Webster exercised his ingenuity in indicating
the senses of this type of verb. That is, he often indicated primary senses of the verbs at the
beginnings of relevant entries. Examples are:
W: BREAK, v.t. [Introductory Remarks]

The primary sense is to strain, stretch, rack, drive; hence, to strain and burst or break.
104
W: MAKE, v.t. [Introductory Remarks]

The primary sense is to cause to act or do, to press, drive, strain or compel, as in the phrases, make
your servant work, make him go.
The most significant example is observed in the entry on take (v.t.). Webster divided this
entry into 40 sub-entries. In the first sub-entry, he made the following remarks which end
with the word Thus and the comma:
W: TAKE, v.t. 1.
In a general sense, to get hold or gain possession of a thing in almost any manner, either by
receiving it when offered, or by using exertion to obtain it. Take differs from seize, as it does not
always imply haste, force or violence. It more generally denotes to gain or receive into possession
in a peaceable manner, either passively or by active exertions. Thus,
Then, after Thus, Webster provided other sub-entries one after another. This indicates that
the first sub-entry is an introduction to the following 39 sub-entries. Such an attitude is in
no way found in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary; Johnson simply stated
the following in the first sub-entry on the word:
J: To TAKE. v.a. 1.
To receive what is offered.
It can now be said that Webster’s treatment of verbs of high frequency, a type of word
which has a wide range of senses, is generally more skilled and systematic than Johnson’s.

in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency
As mentioned in the previous sub-section, Johnson supplied 1,496 citations in entries on

verbs of high frequency except for citations in sub-entries especially provided for idioms.
The following table shows the sources of these citations, and the number of citations from
respective sources.


Bible 249 Tillotson 9 Philips 3 Otway 1
Dryden 183 Collier 9 Moxon 3 More 1
Shakespeare 165 Sidney 9 Guardian 3 May 1
Locke 101 Butler 9 Granville 3 King Charles 1
Addison 94 Felton 9 Digby 3 Hubbard 1
Bacon 83 Cheyne 8 Broome 3 Harvey 1
105


Milton 49 Browne 8 Duppa 2 Hakewill 1
Swift 45 Rowe 7 Tusser 2 Grew 1
Pope 40 Denham 7 Tickell 2 Glany 1
Knolles 29 Wake 7 Raleigh 2 Foyer 1
Boyle 20 Tatler 7 Holder 2 Fairfax 1
Hooker 20 Taylor 6 Hammond 2 Dorset 1
Temple 19 Spectator 6 Graunt 2 Cowley 1
South 18 Bentley 6 Allestree 2 Congr. Dedic. 1
Arbuthnot 16 Woodward 5 Gay 2 Child 1

Watts 16 Herbert 5 Davies 2 Calamy 1
Burnet 14 Richard 5 Carew 2 Bramh 1
L’Estrange 13 Daniel 4 Baker 2 Blount 1
Clarendon 13 Wiseman 4 Ayliffe 2 Blackmore 1
Atterbury 12 Hayward 4 Wotton 1 Ascham 1
Waller 12 Garth 4 Theocrit 1 Ainsworth 1
Prior 12 Donne 4 Suckling 1 Abbot 1
Mortimer 12 Camden 4 Sprat 1 old proverb 1
Spenser 11 Wilkins 3 Smith 1 ----- ---
Hale 11 Tate 3 Saunderson 1 ----- ---
Ben Jonson 10 Ray 3 Sandys 1 ----- ---
When this table is compared with Table 1 in Section 4.1.1, one notable fact is revealed. As
seen in Table 1, Johnson generally quoted from Shakespeare in first-order frequency,
Dryden in second-order and the Bible in third-order. This rank-order is inverted in the case
of entries on verbs of high frequency. This phenomenon can hardly be regarded as a chance
happening. In entries on words for the letter L, citations from the Bible account for 6.7%, or
270 in number out of 4,047. By contrast, in entries on verbs of high frequency, they account
for 16.7%, or 249 out of 1,496. This difference is not negligible, and it strongly indicates
the probability that Johnson intentionally quoted especially frequently from the Bible in
entries on such verbs.
Table 7 also reveals one more significant fact. It was also observed in Section 4.2.2 that
Johnson occasionally replaced his definitions with citations from authors who are not men
of letters. As confirmed then, Johnson quoted especially often from Hanmer, Harris, Hill
and Miller on that occasion. However, none of the four authors appears in Table 7.
Needless to say, it is never possible for the four authors to avoid using verbs of high
frequency. As Henry Fowler and Francis Fowler (Sykes 1976: v) remarked in the “Preface”
to the first edition of the COD (1911), the verbs belong to the types of words which “no one
106
goes through the day without using scores or hundreds of times”. At the same time,
however, verbs of high frequency are not a type of word which requires encyclopaedic
explanation. It was already confirmed that Johnson replaced his definitions with citations
mainly for the purpose of providing encyclopaedic information. In this sense, the fact that
the four authors do not appear in Table 7 signifies that Johnson selected the sources of
citations according to the types of entry-words. It may be worth pointing out, in passing,
that Johnson likewise rarely quoted from the four authors in entries on function words with
the exception of sub-entries provided for idioms in them, which will be clearly seen in
Table 13 in Section 6.1.2, Table 18 in Section 6.2.2 and Table 24 in Section 8.1.1.
In the case of Webster’s Dictionary, the sources of 224 citations supplied in entries on
verbs of high frequency are as shown below.


Bible 73 Spenser 2 Tate 1 Davies 1
Dryden 21 Spectator 2 Sprat 1 Daniel 1
Shakespeare 17 Rowe 2 South 1 Collier 1
Bacon 13 Prior 2 Sidney 1 Clarendon 1
Addison 12 Moxon 2 Sanderson 1 Childs 1
Pope 11 Mortimer 2 Ruth 1 Carew 1
Locke 7 Knolles 2 Ray 1 Burnet 1
Swift 5 Herbert 2 Newton 1 Boyle 1
Woodward 3 Ben Jonson 2 Mass. Report 1 Ayliffe 1
Tillotson 3 Arbuthnot 2 L’Estrange 1 old proverb 1
Milton 3 Young 1 Hopkinson 1 ‘unspecified’ 2
Watts 2 Wiseman 1 Holder 1 ----- ---
Wake 2 Waller 1 Felton 1 ----- ---
Temple 2 Taylor 1 Dwight 1 ----- ---
This table indicates that Webster quoted more than ten times from each of the Bible,
Dryden, Shakespeare, Bacon, Addison and Pope. Among the sources, he quoted from the
Bible in first-order frequency, Dryden in second-order and Shakespeare in third-order. The
rank-order of the three sources is identical with that in the case of entries on words for the
letter L, which is revealed in Table 3 in Section 4.3.2. Besides, he seldom quoted from
American authors in either case. This situation indicates that Webster, in contrast to
Johnson, basically did not select sources of citations according to the types of entry-words.
107
5.1.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Biblical Citations

in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency
As I analysed above, both Johnson and Webster quoted from the Bible in first-order
frequency in entries on verbs of high frequency. To be more specific, they supplied biblical
citations in the entries as shown in the table below. The letters J and W here stand for
Johnson’s Dictionary and Webster’s, and the figures indicate the number of biblical
citations in respective entries.
Table 9: Biblical Citations in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency


bear, v.t. 11 3 get, v.i. 5 --- run, v.i. 10 2
bear, v.i. --- --- give, v.t. 8 6 run, v.t. 1 1
break, v.t. 2 --- give, v.i. --- --- take, v.t. 34 10
break, v.i. 3 1 go, v.i. 30 3 take, v.i. --- ---
cast, v.t. 9 8 make, v.t. 40 5 throw, v.t. 3 ---
cast, v.i. --- --- make, v.i. 2 --- throw, v.i. --- ---
come, v.i. 6 8 put, v.t. 25 3 turn, v.t. 6 4
fall, v.i. 13 9 put, v.i. --- --- turn. v.i. 4 2
fall, v.t. --- --- set, v.t. 24 8 ----- --- ---
get, v.t. 11 --- set, v.i. 2 --- ----- --- ---
This table shows that Johnson supplied biblical citations in 21 entries on verbs of high
frequency out of 28 to be treated here. This means that biblical citations are supplied in
almost all these entries in his Dictionary; only in 7 entries did he not quote from the Bible.
More specifically, Johnson provided 551 sub-entries in total within the range of these 28
entries, which is reflected in Table 6 in Section 5.1.1. He supplied biblical citations for
approximately a quarter of them, specifically for 138 sub-entries. We can confirm here that
Johnson liberally quoted from the Bible in entries on verbs of high frequency. By contrast,
Webster was manifestly far less liberal than Johnson in supplying biblical citations in
entries on this type of verb. He entirely eliminated Johnson’s biblical citations supplied in 6
entries, namely the entries on break (v.t.), get (v.t.), get (v.i.), make (v.i.), set (v.i.) and
throw (v.t.). Additionally, it can be clearly observed that in almost all entries Webster
eliminated Johnson’s biblical citations; Webster’s biblical citations are smaller in number
than Johnson’s in 13 entries, and in only one entry, on come (v.i.), Webster’s outnumber
Johnson’s by a margin of 2. In this way, when compared with Johnson, Webster supplied
quite a small number of biblical citations in entries on these verbs. However, in terms of the
use of the citations, Webster was far more skilful than Johnson in light of lexicographical
technique, as will be proved below.
As mentioned above, Johnson supplied biblical citations in 138 sub-entries on verbs of
high frequency. These sub-entries can be divided into two types. In 92 out of these 138,
citations from the Bible are supplied together with citations from other sources (Type 1); in
the remaining 46 sub-entries, only citations from the Bible are supplied (Type 2). The
108
following table shows the situation. The figures here are sub-entry numbers as marked by
Johnson.
Table 10: Biblical Citations in Sub-entries on Verbs of High Frequency

Entry-words Type 1 Type 2 Entry-words Type 1 Type 2

bear, (v.a.) 2, 8, 13, 17, 7, 9, 12, 13. make, (v.a.) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 21, 22, 29.
24. 8, 9, 17.
bear, (v.n.) ----- ----- make, (v.n.) 2, 4. -----
break, (v.a.) 1. ----- put, (v.a.) 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 4, 5, 11, 12,
14, 16. 18.
break, (v.n.) 10. ----- put. (v.n.) ----- -----
cast, (v.a.) 1, 9, 10. 3, 6, 7, 11, set, (v.a.) 1, 2, 10, 12, 19, 22.
19. 20, 21.
cast, (v.n.) ----- ----- set, (v.n.) 1. 3.
come, (v.n.) 3, 6, 13. 4, 15. run, (v.n.) 1, 5, 9, 35, 4, 6, 36.
37.
fall, (v.n.) 2, 8, 9, 11, 22, 3, 5, 30. run, (v.a.) 4. -----
28, 33.
fall, (v.a.) ----- ----- take, (v.a.) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 3, 10, 12, 13,
22, 24, 25, 18, 35, 47,
32, 33, 34, 65.
36, 38, 40,
50.
get, (v.a.) 1, 3, 14, 15. ----- take, (v.n.) ----- -----
get, (v.n.) 1, 4, 7. ----- throw, (v.a.) 1. -----
give, (v.a.) 1, 2, 4, 7, 20. 6. throw, (v.n.) ----- -----
give, (v.n.) ----- ----- turn, (v.a.) 9. 15, 18, 30,
33.
go, (v.n.) 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 2, 11, 17, 22, turn, (v.n.) 8, 12. -----
14, 15, 26, 29, 48.
35, 47.
As to the sub-entries of Type 1, Johnson manifestly did not distinguish biblical citations
from other citations there. The following is a couple of examples of the contents in this type
of sub-entry:
J: To BREAK. v.a. 1.
To part by violence.
When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets of fragments took ye up?
Mark, viii. 19.
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. Psalm ii. 3.
See, said the sire, how soon ‘tis done;
Then took and broke them one by one:
So strong you’ll be in friendship ty’d;
So quickly broke, if you divide. Swift.
109
J: To CAST. v.a. 1.
To throw with the hand.
I rather chuse to endure the wounds of those darts, which envy casteth at novelty, than to go on
safely and sleepily in the easy ways of ancient mistakings. Raleigh’s Hist. of the World.
They had compassed in his host, and cast darts at the people from morning till evening. 1 Macc.
vii. 80.
Then cast thy sword away,
And yield thee to my mercy, or I strike. Dryden and Lee.
Concerning the sub-entries of Type 2, the situation is as shown below:
J: To COME. v.n. 4.
To proceed; to issue.
Behold, my son, which came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life. 2 Sa. xvi. 11.
I came forth from the father, and am come into the world. Jo. xvi. 28.
J: To FALL. v.n. 3.
To drop; to be held no longer.
His chains fell off from his hands. Acts xii. 7.
J: To GIVE. v.a. 6.
To quit; to yield as due.
Give place, thou stranger, to an honourable man. Ecclus.
Though Johnson exclusively supplied biblical citations in these sub-entries, it seems that
such senses as “To proceed; to issue” of come, “To drop; to be held no longer” of fall and
“To quit; to yield as due” of give could have been illustrated by citations other than those
from the Bible. It may safely be said that Johnson quoted from the Bible in these sub-
entries because of his attachment to morality, not because of his wish to indicate the senses
and usage of the language.
In Webster’s case, he borrowed some biblical citations from Johnson’s Dictionary. They
account for 42 of 73 citations from the Bible within the range of entries on verbs of high
frequency in Webster’s Dictionary. In other words, Webster disregarded 249 of Johnson’s
biblical citations and chose 31 passages directly from the Bible by himself. However, little
can be known about his criteria for the selection of these 31 passages. Only the fact is found
that Webster quoted one of them to show the sense of a word in biblical English as follows:
W: RUN, v.i. 55.

In Scripture, to pursue or practice the duties of religion.
Ye did run well; who did hinder you? Gal. v.
As for the remaining 30 passages, Webster quoted them genuinely to illustrate the usual
senses of entry-words. Besides, he did not provide a usage note with them. Instead,
concerning the 42 citations he borrowed from Johnson, the analysis of them fairly clearly
reveals how Webster made use of biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency. I
will discuss the point below.
With regard to the point, what is especially conspicuous is that Webster boldly shortened
most biblical citations which he borrowed from Johnson’s Dictionary. Examples are:
110
J: To GO. v.n. 8.
To depart from a place; to move from a place; the opposite of to come.
I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice; only you shall not go very far away. Ex. viii. 28.
----------
W: GO, v.i. 5.
To depart; to move from a place; opposed to come. The mail goes and comes every day, or twice a
week.
I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice. Ex. viii.
J: To MAKE. v.a. 5.
To produce as the agent.
When their hearts were merry they said, Call for Sampson, that he may make us sport. Judg. xvi.
25.
----------
W: MAKE, v.t. 6.
To produce or effect, as the agent.
Call for Sampson, that he may make us sport. Judges xvi.
Webster shortened Johnson’s biblical citations even in the following way; he cut out short
phrases from Johnson’s citations here, apparently disregarding their context:
J: To BEAR. v.a. 2.
To carry as a burden.
They bear him upon the shoulder; they carry him and set him in his place. Isaiah, x.vi. 7.
As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh
them, beareth them on her wings. Deuteronomy, xxxii. 11.
---------
W: BEAR, v.t. 2.
To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, “they bear him upon the
shoulder;” “the eagle beareth them on her wings.” Isaiah. Deuteronomy.
The examples above clearly show that Webster did not choose biblical passages to be
quoted based on his morality. Actually, most of Webster’s biblical citations in entries on
verbs of high frequency are composed of less than ten words. They form a contrast with
citations from other sources. In other words, when Webster borrowed other citations from
entries on verbs of high frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary, he did not make them so short
as he did in the case of biblical citations. In many cases, Webster’s citations from the
sources other than the Bible are composed of more than ten words as shown below:
J: To TAKE. v.a. 42.

To draw; to derive.
The firm belief of a future judgment, is the most forcible motive to a good life; because taken
from this consideration of the most lasting happiness and misery. Tillotson.
----------
W: TAKE, v.t. 28.
To draw; to deduce.
The firm belief of a future judgement is the most forcible motive to a good life, because taken
from this consideration of the most lasting happiness and misery. Tillotson.
111
J: To TAKE. v.a. 48.

To suppose; to receive in thought; to entertain in opinion.
Is a man unfortunate in marriage? Still it is because he was deceived; and so took that for virtue
and affection which was nothing but vice in a disguise. South.
----------
W: TAKE, v.t. 31.
To suppose; to receive in thought; to entertain in opinion; to understand. This I take to be the
man’s motive.
He took that for virtue and affection which was nothing but vice in disguise. South.
Evidently, Webster particularly tried to make biblical citations as short as possible. The
reason for this can be ascribed to Webster’s recognition of the relationship between the
American people and the Bible. When the situation of religious education at this time,
which I discussed in Section 3.3.5, is taken into account, it is little wonder if Webster
thought that short phrases and sentences from the Bible were enough for the readers of his
Dictionary to understand in what context the respective entry-words were used.
However, Webster did not shorten Johnson’s biblical citations merely to save space in
his Dictionary. Shortening Johnson’s biblical citations as shown above, Webster uniquely
made use of them. This can be noticed after we fully recognize that Webster very often
shortened Johnson’s citations from the Bible and that in most cases he did not thought of
morality when quoting biblical passages in entries on verbs of high frequency. In concrete
terms, through the analysis of such shortened citations, it becomes possible to know
Webster’s view of the senses and usage of some verbs of high frequency which is
considerably different from Johnson’s. This can especially be said when Webster provided
usage notes with such citations. In the following analysis, I will refer to some examples to
clarify the point.
Firstly, Webster often made use of Johnson’s biblical citations to illustrate his own view
of the senses of verbs of high frequency. In the first sub-entry in the entry on give (v.a.),
Johnson quoted from Mat. and Ex. to illustrate his definition as follows:
J: To GIVE. v.a.1.
To bestow; to confer without any price or reward.
Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. Mat. xxv.
Give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord. Ex. x. 25.
It is clear here that Johnson thought that the verb give in the sentence from Mat. had the
same sense as that in the sentence from Ex. Webster thought differently. He separated the
citations and supplied them in different sub-entries as shown below:
W: GIVE, v.t.3.
To impart; to bestow.
Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. Matt. xxv.
W: GIVE, v.t. 11.

To afford; to supply; to furnish.
Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt-offerings. Ex. x.
112
There is one other example of the same kind. It is seen in the entry on set (v.t.). Johnson
supplied biblical citations in a sub-entry there as follows:
J: To SET. v.a. 10.

To fix the affection; to determine the resolution.
Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Col. iii. 2.
Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, the heart of men is fully set in
them to do evil. Eccl.
Webster separated these citations in this way:
W: SET, v.t. 15.

To fix; to place; as the heart or affections.
Set your affections on things above. Col. iii.
W: SET, v.t. 16.

To fix firmly; to predetermine.
The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccles viii.
Secondly, it is occasionally possible to grasp the differences between Johnson’s view of

English grammar and Webster’s through the analysis of their biblical citations. One
example is this:
J: To SET. v.n. 3.
To be extinguished or darkened, as the sun at night.
Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set, by reason of his age. 1 Kings xiv. 4.
W: SET, v.t. 29.

To dim; to darken or extinguish.
Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age. 1 Kings xiv.
Differently from his usual practice, Webster here copied Johnson’s biblical citation as it is.
However, while Johnson supplied the citation in the entry on set as an intransitive verb,
Webster in that as a transitive verb. Incidentally, Johnson seems to have stuck to the view
that set in this citation is an intransitive verb; he was to leave the citation in the same entry
in the fourth edition of his Dictionary.
Thirdly, there are times when Webster provided usage notes, referring to Johnson’s
biblical citations. In the entry on come (v.n.), Johnson simply quoted from Job. to illustrate
his definition:
J: To COME. v.n. 6.
To change condition either for better or worse.
His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not. Job xiv. 21.
Webster quoted this sentence in the following context:

113
W: COME, v.i. 3.
To advance and arrive at some state or condition; as, the ships came to action; the players came to
blows; is it come to this?
His sons come to honor and he knoweth it not. Job xiv.
I wonder how he came to know what had been done; how did he come by his knowledge? the heir
comes into possession of his estate; the man will come in time to abhor the vices of his youth, or
he will come to be poor and despicable, or to poverty.
In these and similar phrases, we observe the process or advance is applied to the body or to the
mind, indifferently; and to persons or events.
The following is another example:
J: To SET. v.a. 10.

To fix the affection; to determine the resolution.
Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, the heart of men is fully set in
them to do evil. Eccl.
----------
W: SET, v.t. 16.
To fix firmly; to predetermine.
The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccles viii.
Hence we say, a thing is done of set purpose; a man is set, that is, firm or obstinate in his opinion
or way.
Concerning this point, it is not that Johnson did not quote from the Bible to illustrate his
view of the usage of verbs of high frequency. He, however did this only in 2 sub-entries out
of 138 in which he supplied biblical citations; the one is a sub-entry of Type 1, and the
other is that of Type 2. Concerning the former, he supplied 9 citations in a sub-entry on
come (v.n.), one of which is a biblical citation. This sub-entry begins as follows:
J: To COME. v.n. 3.
To move in any manner towards another; implying the idea of being received by another, or of
tending towards another. The word always respects the place to which the motion tends, not that
place which it leaves; yet this meaning is sometimes almost evanescent and imperceptible.
I did hear
The galloping of horse: who wasn’t came by? Sh. Macbeth.
Bid them cover the table, serve in the meat, and we will come in to dinner. Shakesp. Merchant
of Venice.
As soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance the first
fruits. 2 Chron. xxxi. 5.
As for the latter, it is a sub-entry on go (v.n.). The following is the whole of its contents:
J: To GO. v.n. 48.

To be in any state. This sense is impersonal.
It shall go ill with him that is left in his tabernacle. Job xx.
He called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house. 1 Chr. vii. 23.

114

5.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Citations from Sources Other than the Bible in
Entries on Verbs of High Frequency
In this sub-section, I will first analyse Johnson’s practice of using citations from sources
other than the Bible when he provided usage notes, and analyse how Webster followed and
modified the practice after that. Besides, I will also investigate how Webster made use of
such citations of Johnson’s.
As confirmed in the previous sub-section, in spite of the fact that Johnson supplied
abundant biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency, he rarely used them to
illustrate the usage of words. This fact may seem to indicate that he hardly provided usage
notes in those entries. Actually, however, Johnson occasionally instructed the usage of
words there, and he also illustrated them with a considerable number of citations. In this
practice, Johnson basically supplied citations from sources other than the Bible; he
evidently avoided quoting from the Bible in such cases, which strengthens the probability
that he supplied biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency almost entirely
because of his morality. How, then, did Johnson make use of citations taken from sources
other than the Bible? Johnson used them in two ways for the purpose of illustrating his
comments on the usage of relevant words.
One way is that he supplied such citations to show the ‘incorrect’ use of entry-words. In
the following examples, Johnson censured Dryden’s and Hooker’s use of give, and
Shakespeare’s use of set:
J: To GIVE. v.n. 1.
To rush; to fall on; to give the assault. A phrase merely French, and not worthy of adoption.
Your orders come too late, the fight’s begun;
The enemy gives on with fury led. Dryd. Ind. Emp.
Hannibal gave upon the Romans. Hooke’s Rom. Hist.
J: To SET. v.n. 10.

It is commonly used in conversation for sit, which, though undoubtedly barbarous, is sometimes
found in authors.
If they set down before’s, ‘fore they remove,
Bring up your army. Shakespeare.
The other way is that Johnson supplied citations to illustrate ‘correct’ use of entry-words
under his usage notes. He did this especially when indicating the prepositions to be used
with the verbs concerned. Examples are observable in the sub-entries on bear (v.n.), break
(v.a.), set (v.a.) and run (v.n.). Johnson supplied 21 citations in total from 16 authors in
these four sub-entries: 2 each from Addison, Bacon, Ben Jonson, William Broome and
Dryden, and 1 each from Robert Boyle, Thomas Burnet, Samuel Daniel, Nehemiah Grew,
Samuel Butler, Locke, Milton, John Ray, Shakespeare, John Tillotson and John Wilkins. It
is notable that even in this case of showing ‘good’ examples not a single sentence from the
115
Bible, the source of first-order frequency within the range of entries on verbs of high
frequency, is included in them. The following is a couple of examples:
J: To BEAR. v.n. 7.
To act as an impellent, or as a reciprocal power; generally with the particles upon or against.
We were encounter’d by a mighty rock,
Which being violently born upon,
Our helpless ship was splitted in the midst. Shakespeare.
Upon the tops of mountains, the air which bears against the restagnant quicksilver, is less
pressed. Boyle.
[Other citations from Burnet, Dryden, Ray, Wilkins and Broom are left out. K.M.]
J: To SET. v.a. 13.

To exhibit; to display; to propose. With before.
Through the variety of my reading, I set before me many examples both of ancient and later
times. Bacon.
Reject not then what offer’d means: who knows
But God hath set before us, to return thee
Home to thy country and his sacred house? Milton.
Long has my soul desir’d this time and place,
To set before your sight your glorious race. Dryden.
[Other citations from Tillotson, Addison, Broome are left out. K.M.]
The above are two patterns of Johnson’s use of citations from the sources other than the
Bible. As for Webster, he apparently followed these patterns. He also indicated ‘incorrect’
and ‘correct’ use of entry-words, supplying the same type of citation. Additionally, in this
practice, Webster often borrowed citations supplied in the entries on verbs of high
frequency in Johnson’s Dictionary. However, this does not mean that Webster accepted
Johnson’s view of the usage of verbs of high frequency. Making use of Johnson’s citations,
Webster expressed his unique view of these verbs.
Firstly, he indicated the ‘incorrect’ use of bear, break, get and make in the sub-entries
‘BEAR, v.i. 1’, ‘BREAK, v.i. 11’, ‘GET, v.a. 5’, ‘GET, v.t. 2’ and ‘MAKE, v.t. 17’. The
following is a couple of examples taken from these sub-entries, which clearly shows how
Webster made use of Johnson’s practice and citations based on his unique view of these
words:
J: To BEAR. v.n. 1.
To suffer pain.
Stranger, cease thy care:
Wise is the soul; but man is born to bear.
Jove weighs affairs of earth in dubious scales,
And the good suffers while the bad prevails. Pope’s Odyssey.
----------
W: BEAR, v.i. 1.
To suffer, as with pain.
But man is born to bear. Pope.
This is unusual in prose; and though admissible, is rendered intransitive, merely by the omission of
pain, or other word expressive of evil.
116
J: To GET. v.a. 4.
To have possession of; to hold.
Then forcing thee, by fire he made thee bright;
Nay, thou hast got the face of man. Herbert.
----------
W: GET, v.t. 2.
To have.
Thou hast got the face of a man. Herbert.
This is a most common, but gross abuse of this word. We constantly hear it said, I have got no
corn, I have got no money, she has got a fair complexion, when the person means only, I have no
corn, I have no money, she has a fair complexion.
As these examples indicate, Webster certainly made use of Johnson’s citations in his
practice, but always provided usage notes which had not been provided by Johnson.
Incidentally, as to the second example of the above, it seems strange that Johnson, who
was basically prescriptive and cared about the preservation of ‘genuinely’ literary
expressions, did not comment on have got. As Webster suggested, this is a colloquial
expression; the OED attached the label “colloq.” to have got. In this sense, Webster may be
said to have been more prescriptive than Johnson here. Besides, it can even be said that his
view of the expression revealed in the sub-entry is in common with that of some
lexicographers of modern English dictionaries. For instance, the authors of the COBUILD
has explained the expression as follows:
[...] ‘have’ alone would be correct but more formal. The word got itself adds nothing to the
meaning of ‘have’. The form have got looks as if it is the auxiliary ‘have’ followed by the past
participle of the verb ‘get’, but it is used with the same meanings as the main verb ‘have’, in the
senses of owning or possessing things.
This explanation basically agrees with Webster’s.

Webster’s practice of making use of Johnson’s citations for the purpose of illustrating the
‘incorrect use’ of verbs of high frequency may be understood better if we further refer to a
sub-entry on make (v.t.), where Webster rewrote a phrase in a citation from Dryden which
was taken from Johnson’s Dictionary:
J: To MAKE. v.a. 16.

To intend; to purpose to do.
Gomez; what maks’t thou here with a whole brotherhood of city-bailiffs? Dryden’s Spanish
Fryar.
----------
W: MAKE, v.t. 17.
To intend or to do; to purpose to do.
Gomez, what mak’st thou here, with a whole brotherhood of city bailiffs? [Not used.] Dryden.
We now say, what doest thou here?
Secondly, Webster showed a strong interest in indicating prepositions to be used with verbs
concerned as Johnson did. However, in this case, Webster borrowed only one citation from
Johnson’s Dictionary. He did this in a sub-entry on cast (v.i.) as follows:
117
J: To CAST. v.n. 1.
To contrive; to turn the thoughts.
We have three that bend themselves, looking into the experiments of their fellows, and cast
about how to draw out of them things of use and practice for man’s life and knowledge. Bacon’s
New Atlantis
All events, called casual, among inanimate bodies, are mechanically produced according to the
determinate figures, textures, and motions of those bodies, which are not conscious of their own
operations, nor contrived and cast about how to bring such events to pass. Bentley..
----------
W: CAST, v.i. 1.
To throw forward, as the thoughts, with a view to some determination; or to turn or revolve in the
mind; to contrive; sometimes followed by about.
To cast about how to perform or obtain. Bacon. Bentley.
Here again, Webster made use of Johnson’s citation based on his own view of English
usage. Webster, however, preferred inventing examples to borrowing Johnson’s citations as
far as the instruction of prepositional usage is concerned within the range of entries on
verbs of high frequency. The following examples suggest this preference of his:
W: BREAK, v.t. 18.

To dissolve any union; sometimes with off ; as, to break off a connection.
W: BREAK, v.i. 10.

To make way with violence or suddenness; to rush; often with a particle; as, to break in; to break
in upon, as calamities; to break over, as a flood; to break out, as a fire; to break forth, as light or a
sound.
In this way, in indicating the ‘incorrect’ use of entry-words and showing the ‘correct’ use of
prepositions concerned, Webster made use of Johnson’s patterns and citations based on his
unique view of English usage within the range of entries on verbs of high frequency.
However, referring to Webster’s use of citations taken from sources other than the Bible
within this range, there are more to be stated here. To be specific, Webster availed himself
of Johnson’s citations to illustrate the senses of some verbs which were not mentioned by
Johnson and to illustrate a certain type of expression of his interest, namely an elliptical
expression. As to the former, Webster did not always thought of the senses of verbs of high
frequency as Johnson did. It was revealed in Sections 4.5.6 and 5.1.3 that Webster
sometimes separated a bunch of biblical citations supplied in a single sub-entry in
Johnson’s Dictionary. Webster practiced in the same way about citations from sources
other than the Bible. One example is as follows:
J: To RUN. v.n. 11.

To be fusible; to melt.
Her form glides through me, and my heart gives way;
This iron heart, which no impression took
From wars, melts down, and runs, if she but look. Dryden.
Sussex iron ores run freely in the fire. Woodward.
Your iron must not burn in the fire; that is, run or melt; for then it will be brittle. Moxon’s Mech.
Exerc.
118
----------
W: RUN, v.i. 14.
To be fusible; to melt.
Sussex iron ores run freely in the fire. Woodward.
W: RUN, v.i. 15.

To fuse; to melt.
Your iron must not burn in the fire, that is, run or melt, for then it will be brittle. Moxon.
It is seen here that Webster differentiated the sense of “to be fusible” from that of “to fuse”,
which had not been Johnson’s practice.
As to the latter, Webster’s use of Johnson’s citations for the illustration of an elliptical
expression, he seems to have had an interest in this type of expression. Within the range of
entries on verbs of high frequency, Webster treated it in 4 sub-entries, ‘BEAR, v.i.2’,
‘GIVE, v.t.12’, ‘RUN, v.i. 12’ and ‘BEAR, v.i. 3’. The treatment of an elliptical expression
is unique to Webster, and Johnson did not mention it at all within the corresponding range
of entries. The following examples show how Webster made use of Johnson’s citations for
the treatment of the expression:
J: To BEAR. v.n. 2.
To be patient.
I cannot, cannot bear, ‘tis past, ‘tis done;
Perish this impious, this detested son. Dryden’s Fables.
----------
W: BEAR, v.i. 2.
To be patient; to endure.
I cannot, cannot bear. Dryden.
This also seems to be elliptical.
J: To RUN. v.n. 9.
To stream; to flow.
I command, that the conduit run nothing but claret. Shak.
Rivers run portable gold. Milton.
----------
W: RUN, v.i. 12.
To emit; to let flow.
I command that the conduit run nothing but claret. Shak.
Rivers run portable gold. Milton.
But this form of expression is elliptical, with being omitted; “rivers run with portable gold.”
Evidently, Webster was conscious of elliptical expressions which were included among
Johnson’s citations but were passed over by Johnson.
It can safely be said that the examples observed thus far indicate that Webster never
blindly copied or shortened Johnson’s citations, and that he made full use of them based on
his unique view of the usage of verbs of high frequency. The following example seems to
ensure the point. In this example, it is seen that Webster skilfully combined his invented
examples and Johnson’s citation to instruct the usage of the entry-word:
119
J: To GO. v.n. 42.

To extend in meaning.
His amorous expressions go no further than virtue may allow. Dryden’s Ovid, Preface.
----------
W: GO, v.i. 30, 31 and 32.
30. To proceed; to extend. This argument goes far towards proving the point. It goes a great
way towards establishing the innocence of the accused.
31. To have effect; to extend in effect; to avail; to be of force or value. Money goes farther now
than it did during the war.
32. To extend in meaning or purport.
His amorous expressions go no further than virtue may allow. Dryden.
[In the last three examples, the sense of go depends on far, farther, further.]
In entries on verbs of high frequency, both Johnson and Webster supplied an abundance of
citations. In view of the nature of these verbs, both lexicographers must have been free to
quote from their favourite sources in the entries; in contrast with technical terms and other
hard words, no English speaker can avoid using verbs of high frequency. In this situation,
Johnson quoted especially frequently from the Bible. However, he rarely made use of
biblical citations to illustrate his view of English usage; Johnson quoted from other sources
for that purpose. This signifies that Johnson was more a moralist than a grammarian in
these entries. Webster also supplied a large number of biblical citations in the entries.
Differently from Johnson, however, Webster often made use of them to illustrate various
aspects of his view of English usage and grammar. Besides, as seen in the case of entries on
words for the letter L, which was observed in Section 4.5.6, Webster shortened most of
Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on verbs of high frequency. These facts show that
Webster was less conscious of morality than Johnson when he dealt with these verbs.
Concerning citations from sources other than the Bible, Johnson often utilized them to
illustrate the usage of relevant words; he did this especially when indicating the
prepositions to be used with some verbs. Webster performed in the same way, though he
liked supplying his invented examples rather than citations for the purpose. In addition,
Webster was also interested in explaining elliptical expressions, which motivated him to
make use of some of Johnson’s citations.
Webster divided entries on verbs of high frequency more systematically than Johnson,
and he skilfully arranged verbal examples in these well-structured entries. This can be
regarded as evidence which indicates that Webster almost consistently supplied verbal
examples based on his view of the usage of the verbs.
120
5.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on the Inflected Forms

of Verbs of High Frequency
5.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Inflected Forms of Verbs of
High Frequency
Morton Benson (1986:228), referring to Johnson’s treatment of preterites and past

participles of verbs in his Dictionary, has claimed that the technique in the treatment of
these words “gradually expanded and refined in succeeding dictionaries during the 18th and
19th centuries”. He, however, did not expound in what way it was to be refined after
Johnson. Joseph Reed (1962:99) has said that Webster provided a considerable number of
entries on participles in his Dictionary which were not listed in Johnson’s Dictionary, and
that Webster defined each of the participles. It is regrettable that Reed has not mentioned
what entries on participles Webster added anew to Johnson’s Dictionary and in what way
he defined the words. As far as I know, little consideration has been given to the point of
how Webster borrowed and modified Johnson’s technique in providing the information on
the inflected forms of verbs.
In a sense, it may be said that the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the
inflected forms of verbs are helpful to obtain general knowledge about how much they were
conscious of English grammar in the compilation of their dictionaries. The following table
shows how the lexicographers treated the words. Here, the abbreviations ‘Inf.’, pret., pp.
and ppr. stand, respectively, for the infinitive, the preterite, the past participle and the
present participle, and S and C indicate the number of sub-entries and citations; when the
number of S is 1, it means that the relevant entries are not divided into sub-entries.

Inf. Entry-words Johnson Webster Inf. Entry-words Johnson Webster

S C S C S C S C
bear bearing, --- --- 1 0 given, pp. --- --- 1 0
ppr.
bore, pret. 1 2 1 0 go going, ppr. --- --- 1 0
born, pp. 1 3 2 1 went, pret. 1 0 1 0
break breaking, --- --- 1 0 gone, pp. 5 9 6 2
ppr.
broke, pret. --- --- 1 0 make making, --- --- 1 0
ppr.
broken, pp. 1 1 1 0 made, pret. 1 1 1 0
and pp.
cast casting, --- --- 1 0 put putting, ppr. --- --- 1 0
ppr.
121

in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries (continued)
Inf. Entry-words Johnson Webster Inf. Entry-words Johnson Webster

S C S C S C S C
come coming, --- --- 3 1 set setting, ppr. --- --- 1 0
ppr.
came, pret. 1 1 1 0 set, pp. --- --- 4 0
come, pp. 1 1 --- --- run running, --- --- 4 0
ppr.
fall falling, ppr. --- --- 1 0 ran, pret. 1 1 1 0
fell, pret. 1 1 1 0 take taking, ppr. --- --- 2 0
fallen, pp. --- --- 1 0 took, pret. 1 7 1 1
get getting, --- --- 1 0 taken, pp. 1 6 1 0
ppr..
got, pret. 1 5 1 0 throw throwing, 1 1 1 0
ppr.
gotten, pp. 1 2 1 0 thrown, pp. --- --- 1 0
give giving, ppr. --- --- 1 0 turn turning, --- --- 1 0
ppr.
gave, pret. 1 1 1 0 turned, pp. --- --- 1 0
This table indicates that Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the inflected forms of verbs
are in sharp contrast with each other in two respects. Firstly, while Johnson did not provide
any entries on present participles of verbs with the only exception of the entry on throwing,
Webster consistently provided them. As for Johnson, he intentionally avoided treating
present participles. In the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson stated that:
The participles are [...] omitted, unless, by signifying rather qualities than action, they take the
nature of adjectives; as thinking man, a man of prudence; a pacing horse, a horse that can pace:
these I have ventured to call participial adjectives. But neither are these always inserted, because
they are commonly to be understood, without any danger of mistake, by consulting the verb.
The ‘participles’ referred to in this passage are naturally regarded as being limited to
present participles. When this taken into account, Johnson can be said to have practiced
almost exactly as he stated here. That is, Johnson hardly provided entries on present
participles. Evidently, Webster did not follow Johnson’s practice in this respect.
Incidentally, it was also almost unnecessary for Johnson to provide entries on gerunds or
verbal nouns. He stated that:
The verbal nouns in ing, such as the keeping of the castle, the leading of the army, are always
neglected, or placed only to illustrate the sense of the verb, except when they signify things as well
as actions, and have therefore a plural number, as dwelling, living; or have an absolute and abstract
signification, as colouring, painting, learning. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [4th (par. 35) in the
“Preface”])
122
Secondly, with regard to entries on preterites and past participles of the verbs, Johnson
sometimes provided them and sometimes did not; he provided entries on bore, born,
broken, came, come (pp.), fell, got, gotten, gave, went, gone, made (pret. and pp.), ran,
took and taken, but not on broke, fallen, given, set (pret. and pp.), run (pp.) and thrown.
Webster, on the other hand, basically made it a rule to provide entries on all of these words,
though he omitted entries on cast (pret.), come (pret.), put (pret. and pp.), set (pret.), run
(pp.) and threw probably because of his carelessness. It can be said, therefore, that
Webster’s treatment of preterites and past participles of verbs is more consistent than
Johnson’s.
Since 1747, Johnson had remarked on his treatment of preterites and past participles of
verbs. In his Plan of a Dictionary, which had been published before he began to compile
his Dictionary, Johnson had stated that:
The forms of our verbs are subject to great variety; some end their preter tense in ed [...]. But many
depart from this rule, without agreeing in any other, as I shake, I shook, I have shaken, or shook as
it is sometimes written in poetry; I make, I made, I have made [...] which as they cannot be
reduced to rules, must be learned from the dictionary rather than the grammar. (Johnson 1747:17)
Then, in the “Preface” to his Dictionary, Johnson said how he had treated preterites of
verbs:
Among other derivatives I have been careful to insert and elucidate the anomalous [...] preterites of
verbs, which in the Teutonick dialects are very frequent, and, though familiar to those who have
always used them, interrupt and embarrass the learners of our language. (Johnson 1755: n. pag.
[3rd (par. 21) in the “Preface”])
However, Johnson actually did not provide entries on broke, threw, etc., revealing a
contradiction between his statement and practice. Differently from Johnson, Webster did
not mention his treatment of preterites and past participles. However, Table 11 indicates
that Webster did not simply follow Johnson’s practice and that he treated this type of word
based on his unique principle; he treated almost all preterites, as well as past participles, of
verbs of high frequency in his Dictionary.
Here, it can be tentatively concluded that Webster did not follow Johnson’s practice in
his treatment of present participles, preterites and past participles. Thus he greatly improved
Johnson’s technique in the treatment of such inflected forms of verbs.
5.2.2 Examples for Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment

of the Inflected Forms of Verbs
Both Johnson and Webster supplied a relatively small number of citations in entries on the
inflected forms of verbs; Table 11 in the previous sub-section indicates that Johnson
supplied 42 citations in total in 16 entries and that Webster no more than 5 citations in 35
entries. It is, therefore, almost meaningless to produce a table of their selection of sources
of citations here. From what sources they took citations will be revealed through the
analysis of relevant entries which I will make below.
123
In Johnson’s case, he often provided entries merely to show the existence of inflected
forms of verbs. On this occasion, Johnson sometimes supplied citations without a definition
and a usage note. Examples are:
J: BORE. The preterite of bear.

The father bore it with undaunted soul,
Like one who durst his destiny controul;
Yet with becoming grief he bore his part,
Resign’d his son, but not resign’d his heart. Dryden.
‘Twas my fate
To kill my father, and pollute his bed,
By marrying her who bore me. Dryden and Lee’s OEdipus.
J: BROKEN. [particip. pass. of break.]

Preserve men’s wits from being broken with the very bent of so long attention. Hooker.
J: CAME. The preterite of to come.

Till all the pack came up, and ev’ry hound
Tore the sad huntsman, grov’ling on the ground. Addison.
J: COME. [participle of the verb.]

Thy words were heard, and I am come to thy words. Dan.
This was Johnson’s usual practice in entries on the inflected forms of verbs which were not
divided into sub-entries; he performed in this way in 14 entries out of 16. Incidentally,
Johnson treated went as follows in its relevant entry:
J: WENT. pret. See WEND and GO.
This is the whole of the contents of the entry; he neither gave a definition nor supplied a
citation in this entry.
As to Webster, he treated some inflected forms of verbs as Johnson did in the entry on
went in his Dictionary. That is, Webster sometimes did nothing more than suggest that
readers refer to entries on the infinitives there. He basically did not supply a verbal example
in such a case. The following are examples:
W: BORE, pret. of bear. [See Bear.]
W: BROKE, pret. and pp. of break.
W: CAME, pret. of come, which see.
In 9 entries out of 35 on the inflected forms of verbs, Webster only indicated their
infinitives; similar examples are seen in entries on fell, gave, got, gotten, made (pret. and
pp.) and threw. In this regard, Joseph Reed’s remarks referred to at the beginning of
Section 5.2.1, that Webster defined each of participles, is not sufficiently convincing.
Webster, however, gave brief definitions in entries on broken, fallen, given, ran, taken,
thrown and turned (pp.) as follows:
124
W: BROKEN, pp. of break.

Parted by violence; rent asunder; infirm; made bankrupt.
W: FALLEN, pp. or a.
Dropped; descended; degraded; decreased; ruined.
W: GIVEN, pp.
Bestowed; granted; conferred; imparted; admitted or supposed.
In entries on got and went, Webster provided etymological information in brief:
W: GOT, pret. of get.

The old preterit gat, pronounced got, is nearly obsolete.
W: WENT, pret. of the obsolete verb wend.

We now arrange went in grammar as the preterit of go, but in origin it has no connection with it.
It was rare for Webster to supply citations without definitions in entries on inflected forms
of verbs, which Johnson often did as already observed. Webster did this only once in the
entry on took:
W: TOOK, pret. of take.

Enoch was not, for God took him. Gen. v.
Johnson divided only one entry into sub-entries within the range of entries indicated in
Table 11. It is the entry on gone. In this entry, Johnson supplied a citation from Addison at
the beginning, and provided five sub-entries after that, giving a synonymous definition with
one or two citations in each of them. The following is the whole of the contents of the
entry:
J: GONE. part. preter. [from go. See To GO.] 1-5.

As,
I need not qualify these remarks with a supposition that I have gone upon through the whole
course of my papers. Addis.
1. Advanced; forward in progress.
I have known sheep cured of the rot, when they have not been far gone with it, only by being
put into broomlands. Mort.
The observator is much the brisker of the two, and, I think, farther gone of late in lyes and
impudence than his Presbyterian brother. Swift.
2. Ruined; undone.
He must know ‘tis none of your daughter, nor my sister; we are gone else. Shakespeare’s
Winter’s Tale.
3. Past.
I’ll tell the story of my life,
And the particular accidents gone by,
Since I came to this isle. Shakespeare’s Tempest.
4. Lost; departed.
When her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas. Acts
xvi. 19.
125
Speech is confined to the living, and imparted to only those that are in presence, and is transient
and gone. Holder.
5. Dead; departed from life.
I mourn Adonis dead and gone. Oldham.
A dog, that has his nose held in the vapour, loses all signs of life; but carried into the air, or
thrown into a lake, recovers, if not quite gone. Addison’s Remarks on Italy.
Webster also divided the entry on gone into sub-entries. However, he did this from a
perspective quite different from Johnson’s. The following is the entry on gone in Webster’s
Dictionary:
W: GONE, pp. of go; pronounced nearly gawn.: 1-6

1. Departed.
It was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath. 1 Kings ii.
2. Advanced; forward in progress; with far, farther, or further; as a man far gone in
intemperance.
3. Ruined; undone. Exert yourselves, or we are gone.
4. Past; as, these happy days are gone; sometimes with by. Those times are gone by.
5. Lost.
When her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone --- Acts. xvi.
6. Departed from life; deceased; dead.
When the entry on gone in Webster’s Dictionary is compared with that in Johnson’s, it
becomes clear that Webster was conscious of the usage of gone, while Johnson focused his
attention on the senses of the word. Webster commented on the combination of gone and
the words far, farther, further and by. Besides, Webster’s verbal examples here include the
expressions had gone, are gone and was gone. This can be regarded as the reflection of
Webster’s consciousness of grammatical tenses.
Lastly, Webster provided entries on present participles, which are almost peculiar to
Webster’s Dictionary, basically as shown below:
W: BEARING, ppr.
Supporting; carrying; producing.
W: BREAKING, ppr.
Parting by violence; rending asunder; becoming bankrupt.
W: CASTING, ppr.
Throwing; sending; computing; calculating; turning; giving a preponderancy; deciding; running, or
throwing into a mold to give shape. [See Cast.]
It is observed here that Webster gave synonymous definitions in these entries. He, however,
occasionally supplied citations and invented verbal examples in entries on this type of word
as follows:
W: COMING, ppr.: 1-3

1. Drawing nearer or nigh; approaching; moving towards; advancing.
2. a. Future; yet to come; as, in coming ages.
126
3. Forward; ready to come.

How coming to the poet every muse. Pope.
[The latter sense is now unusual.]
With regard to the information on the inflected forms of verbs, Johnson’s contribution to
the development of English lexicography is almost limited to the provision of relevant
entries. In many cases, Johnson neither provided a usage note nor gave a definition in the
entries. In this situation, citations, which were occasionally supplied in the entries, do not
seem to function well to illustrate the senses and usage of their relevant entry-words.
Additionally, he often is observed to have forgotten to provide some relevant entries;
though he said he had been careful to provide entries on preterites of irregular verbs, there
are no entries on such words as broke and threw in his Dictionary. He also rarely provided
entries on present participles. In a word, Johnson’s lexicographical technique to show the
information on the inflected forms of verbs is quite primitive.
In contrast to this, Webster provided relevant entries far more generously than Johnson.
Besides, though not so often, Webster provided usage notes in some entries. He also
supplied verbal examples in a more effective way than Johnson for the indication of the
usage of relevant words. It can now safely be said that Webster, referring to Johnson’s
Dictionary, opened a new horizon of lexicographic principle in terms of showing the
information on the inflected forms of verbs.
6: Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions
and Prepositional Adverbs
6.1 Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions
6.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Prepositions
Prepositions belong to the category of function words. As Randolph Quirk et al. (1985:72)
have claimed, the senses of function words are less easy to state than to define them in
relation to other types of words. For this reason, function words are often called
grammatical words or structure words. Then, among other function words, as Quirk et al.
(1985:657) have also claimed, “a preposition expresses a relation between two entities, one
being that represented by the prepositional complement, the other by another part of the
sentence”. Because of this characteristic of prepositions, most modern English
lexicographers do not treat the words as they treat other types of words. Johnson’s and
Webster’s treatment of prepositions is accordingly thought to be different from that of verbs
which was analysed in the previous chapter.
The following table shows how Johnson and Webster treated prepositions in general. In
this table, the letters S and C indicate the number of sub-entries and citations, respectively.
Table 12: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositions


Entry- S C S C Entry- S C S C
words words
about 6 16 7 7 into 3 15 6 ---
after 6 7 6 5 of 23 60 1 7
at 17 39 1 --- off 2 2 2 ---
before 12 14 11 11 on 20 28 14 3
below 4 3 4 --- over 7 15 8 6
by 25 70 14 --- throug 4 12 6 8
h
down 2 3 2 --- to 24 68 28 11
from 21 38 1 --- upon 21 50 20 1
for 34 137 29 28 with 18 23 15 7
in 8 18 1 --- ----- --- --- --- ---
This table reveals that Johnson divided 10 entries out of 19 into more sub-entries than
Webster: at, before, by, from, for, in, of, on, upon and with. As for Webster, on the other
hand, he divided 5 entries into more sub-entries than Johnson: about, into, over, through
and to. With regard to the remaining 4 entries on after, below, down and off, the number
of their sub-entries in Johnson’s Dictionary and that in Webster’s are identical. This
128
situation may give the impression that in most cases Johnson treated prepositions in more
detail than Webster. However, it is to be noted that Webster did not treat all prepositions in
a consistent way. For instance, as the table above shows, Webster did not divide entries on
at, from, in and of, while Johnson divided their corresponding entries into 17, 21, 8 and 23
sub-entries in this order. This, however, does not mean that Webster made light of the
relevant prepositions. In these entries, Webster gave a fairly detailed account of the
prepositions. The entries on at, from and in in Webster’s Dictionary are composed of 55,
74 and 61 lines, respectively; as to the entry on of, it is composed of as many as 115 lines.
This situation clearly indicates that Webster’s treatment of prepositions is considerably
different from Johnson’s, details of which will be discussed later in this sub-section.
In respect of the number of citations, Table 12 shows that Johnson allocated 618
citations in total in 19 entries on prepositions; that is, he allocated 32.5 citations on average
per entry. As confirmed in Section 5.1.1, Johnson allocated 53.4 citations on average per
entry in the case of verbs of high frequency. It can be said, therefore, that Johnson allocated
a relatively small number of citations in entries on prepositions. The same is true of
Webster. He allocated 8.0 citations on average per entry within the range of entries on verbs
of high frequency, which was analysed in Section 5.1.1, but he allocated 5.0 citations on
average per entry in the case of prepositions.
Concerning the principles of their treatment of prepositions, neither Johnson nor Webster
expounded on them in the prefaces to their dictionaries. Johnson, however, referred to his
treatment of particles from a broad perspective. He stated:
The particles are among all nations applied with so great latitude, that they are not easily reducible
under any regular scheme of explication: this difficulty is not less, nor perhaps greater, in English,
than in other languages. I have laboured them with diligence, I hope with success; such at least as
can be expected in a task, which no man, however learned or sagacious, has yet been able to
perform. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [5th (par. 46) in the “Preface”])
Howard Weinbrot (1972:88), quoting the first half of this statement, has pointed out
Johnson’s suffering caused by this type of word which “do not admit of easy definition”.
However, it should not be passed over that the latter half of the same statement reveals
Johnson’s confidence and pride in the treatment of such words. This is in stark contrast to
his statement on the treatment of verbs of high frequency. As clarified in Section 5.1.1,
Johnson was unable to surmount the difficulties he had encountered in treating verbs of
high frequency, and he had to make an excuse for this to the readers of his Dictionary. Such
distress cannot be detected at all in the statement above. The senses of prepositions are by
far more indeterminable than those of verbs of high frequency. Therefore, Johnson’s
confidence in the treatment of prepositions which was expressed in spite of this situation
implies that he treated the words in a different way from the one he adopted in the treatment
of verbs of high frequency.
What grammatical view, then, did Johnson and Webster have about prepositions?
Johnson, though referring little to prepositions in the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary,
provided an entry on preposition in its body. It reads as follows:
J: PREPOSITION. n.s.
In grammar, a particle governing a case.
129
A preposition signifies some relation, which the thing signified by the word following it, has to
something going before in the discourse; as, Cesar came to Rome. Clarke’s Lat. Gram.
It is significant here that Johnson quoted a sentence from a grammar of Latin to illustrate
his view of prepositions in English. It was generally emphasized among eighteenth-century
grammarians that prepositions should be placed before the words or phrases governed by
them. This view was taken from Latin grammar, which was elucidated by Sterling Leonard
(1962:95, 98, 154, 184 and 189-190). Lowth also had this to say:
PREPOSITIONS, so called because they are commonly put before the words to which they are
applied [...]. (Lowth 1762:91)
In this respect, Webster was basically in line with Johnson, though he did not refer to Latin
grammar. Webster’s explanation of prepositions is more detailed than Johnson’s. In the
“Grammar” attached to his Dictionary, Webster stated that:
Prepositions, so called from their being put before other words, serve to connect words and show
the relation between them, or to show the condition of things. Thus a man of benevolence, denotes
a man who possesses benevolence. Christ was crucified between two thieves. Receive the book
from John and give it to Thomas. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [17th in the “Grammar”])
Though this does not closely concern the present topic, Webster uniquely claimed that
some prefixes should be included in the category of prepositions. He, terming them
‘inseparable prepositions’, stated:
We have a number of particles, which serve to vary or modify the words to which they are
prefixed, and which are sometimes called inseparable prepositions, because they are never used,
but as parts of other words. Such are a, be, con, mis, pre, re, sub, in abide, become, conjoin,
mistake, prefix, return, subjoin, &c. These may be called prefixes. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [17th in
the “Grammar”])
According to Yoshihiko Ikegami (1971:47), Webster stuck to this view throughout his life
as a grammarian.
However, the similarity in their opinions about the position where prepositions should be
placed does not mean that Johnson and Webster treated the words identically. As I pointed
out earlier in this sub-section, there is a notable difference between Johnson and Webster in
their formulation of the structures of entries on prepositions. For instance, Johnson divided
the entry on of into 23 sub-entries and allocated 60 citations in them. In some of these sub-
entries, Johnson did nothing more than giving synonymous definitions of the preposition, as
the following skeleton of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth sub-entries on the word
indicates:
3. From.
4. Concerning; relating to.
5. Out of.
6. Among.
8. According to.
130
However, some sub-entries are exclusively provided to show the usage of the word with
citations selected genuinely for the purpose. In this case, Johnson’s invented examples are
occasionally supplied in them, as well. The examples of such sub-entries are as follows:
J: OF. prep. 1.
It is put before the substantive that follows another in construction; as, of these part were slain;
that is, part of these.
I cannot instantly raise up the gross
Of full three thousand ducats. Shakespeare.
He to his natural endowments of a large invention, a ripe judgment, and a strong memory, has
joined the knowledge of the liberal arts. Dryden.
All men naturally fly to God in extremity, and the most atheistical person in the world, when
forsaken of all hopes of any other relief, is forced to acknowledge him. Tillotson.
They will receive it at last with an ample accumulation of interest. Smallridge’s Serm.
Since the rousing of the mind with some degrees of vigour, does set it free from those idle
companions. Locke.
The value of land is raised only by a greater plenty of money. Locke.
J: OF. prep. 2.
It is put after comparative and superlative adjectives.
The most renowned of all are those to whom the name is given Philippinae. Abbot’s Descript.
of the World.
We profess to be animated with the best hopes of any men in the world. Tillotson’s Serm.
At midnight, the most dismal and unseasonable time of all other, then all those virgins arose
and trimmed their lamps. Tillotson, Serm. 31.
We are not to describe our shepherds as shepherds at this day really are, but as they may be
conceived then to have been, when the best of men followed the employment. Pope.
Peace, of all worldly blessings, is the most valuable. Small.
There is not the slightest doubt that the verbal examples in these sub-entries are supplied
based on Johnson’s view of prepositional usage.
Then, 14 sub-entries out of 23 in the entry on of are provided for the indication of what
is to be termed the semantic concepts of the prepositions. It is seen here that Johnson
treated the preposition as a kind of semanticist. All definitions in the 14 sub-entries begin
with the word ‘noting’, signifying that they are essentially different from synonymous ones.
The following are examples:
9. Noting power, ability, choice, or spontaneity. With the reciprocal pronoun.

10. Noting properties or qualities.
11. Noting extraction.
12. Noting adherence, or belonging.
13. Noting the matter of any thing.
Giving definitions in this way, Johnson was also conscious of the usage of the preposition
as his note “With reciprocal pronoun” in the ninth sub-entry above indicates. In this sub-
entry, he supplied 9 citations to illustrate the usage. The first 3 citations out of the 9 are as
follows:
131
Some soils put forth odorate herbs of themselves; as wild thyme. Bacon’s Nat. Hist.
Of himself man is confessedly unequal to his duty. Steph.
The Venice glasses would crack of themselves. Boyle.
As for Webster, he supplied 7 citations and 31 invented examples in the entry on of in his
Dictionary. His explanation of the usage of the word is far more detailed than Johnson’s.
As confirmed earlier, Webster did not divide this entry into sub-entries, but it is longer than
the entry on on which is composed of 14 sub-entries. In this entry on of, what Webster did
first was giving the definitions of the preposition: “From or out of; proceeding from, as the
cause, source, means, author or agent bestowing”. Then, he supplied the following 6
biblical citations in succession, which is quite unusual for him; he did this neither in entries
on words for the letter L nor in those on verbs of high frequency:
I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you. 1 Cor. xi.
For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts. Josh. xi.
It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed. Lam. iii.
The whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. Prov. xvi.
Go, inquire of the Lord for me. 2 Chron. xxxiv.
That holy thing that shall be born of thee. Luke. i.
And under these biblical citations, Webster explained the primary sense of of in brief:
Hence of is the sign of the genitive case, the case that denotes production; as the son of man, the
son proceeding from man, produced from man. This is the primary sense, although we now say,
produced by man.
After this, Webster entered into the details of the entry-word, using 57 lines; there, he
supplied his invented examples, sometimes even paraphrasing them, as shown below:
“Part of these were slain;” that is, a number separate, for part denotes a division; the sense then is,
a number from or out of the whole were slain. So also, “some of these were slain;” that is, some
from or out of the others. “I have known him of old, or of a child;” that is, from old times, from a
child. “He is of the race of kings;” that is, descended from kings. “He is of noble blood or birth, or
of ignoble origin.” “No particle of matter, or no body can move of itself;” that is, by force or
strength proceeding from itself, derived from itself.
At the end of these verbal examples, a citation from Franklin is supplied to illustrate a sense
of the preposition:
Of sometimes implies a part or share.

It is a duty to communicate of those blessings we have received. Franklin.
And Webster concluded the entry with long remarks of thirty lines, comparing of with other
prepositions:
From is then the primary sense of this preposition; a sense retained in off, the same word
differently written for distinction. But this sense is appropriately lost in many of its applications
[...]. That which proceeds from or is produced by a person, is naturally the property or possession
132
of that person [...] and this idea of property in the course of time would pass to things not thus
produced, but still bearing a relation to another thing. [...] In both senses, other languages also use
the same word, as in the French de, de la, and Italian di, dell. Of then has one primary sense, from,
departing, issuing, proceeding from or out of, and a derivative sense denoting possession or
property.
This is the structure of the entry on of in Webster’s Dictionary which is not divided into
sub-entries and consists of 115 lines. In terms of verbal examples, this entry includes 6
biblical passages as authoritative citations, 31 invented phrases and sentences and 1 citation
from Franklin. Besides, in the entry on of in his Dictionary, Webster also referred to
prepositions other than of to make its senses and usage clear.
A similar practice can be observed in the entry on from which Webster did not divide
into sub-entries, either. In Johnson’s case, he indicated the usage of the preposition from in
one of the sub-entries on the word:
J: FROM. prep. 6.
With to following; noting succession.
These motions we must examine from first to last, to find out what was the form of the earth.
Burn. Theo. of the Earth.
He bid her from time to time be comforted. Addis. Spectat.
Concerning other sub-entries, Johnson generally indicated the semantic concepts of the
preposition, using the word ‘noting’. The following are some examples of them:
2. Noting reception.
3. Noting procession, descent, or birth.
4. Noting transmission.
5. Noting abstraction; vacation from.
8. Noting progress from premisses to inferences
Webster, on the other hand, firstly gave his account of the preposition by supplying many
invented examples in the corresponding entry in his Dictionary. It begins as follows:
The sense of from may be expressed by the noun distance, or by the adjective distant, or by the
participles, departing, removing to a distance. Thus it is one hundred miles from Boston to
Hartford. He took his sword from his side. Light proceeds from the sun. Water issues from the
earth in springs. Separate the coarse wool from the fine. Men have all sprung from Adam. Men
often go from good to bad, and from bad to worse.
The fact that Webster did not divide the entry on from into sub-entries is seemingly
relevant to Tooke’s view of the word. As I stated in Section 1.5.4, Tooke wrote a book the
Diversions of Purley (1786-1805), an approach to language and grammar which made his
reputation at his time. It has been widely acknowledged that Webster was greatly
influenced by Tooke’s view of English grammar. Allen Read, for instance, has claimed
that:
133
He [Webster] had been alert to the advances made in his time. The greatest step forward had been
in a book that now seems incredibly out of date – John Horne Tooke’s The Diversions of Purley.
Webster made much use of it [...]. (Read 1967:163)
Tooke thought that the preposition from had only one sense. Therefore, it seems quite
natural to ascribe the fact that Webster did not divide the entry on the word to Tooke’s view
of it. Actually, however, Webster did not follow Tooke in his treatment of the preposition.
To be concrete, as Hans Aarsleff (1967:55-56) clarified, Tooke (1798:342) thought that
“FROM means merely BEGINNING, and nothing else”. This view contradicts Webster’s
explanation of the preposition above in which he stated that from denoted ‘distance’;
besides, he never referred to the relation between from and the sense of ‘beginning’ in the
entry. In this sense, the entry on from in Webster’s Dictionary indicates that he did not
accept the whole of Tooke’s view of English usage.
There are 2 other entries on prepositions which Webster did not divide into sub-entries;
they are the entries on in and at. The first passage in the entry on in in Webster’s
Dictionary is as follows:
In denotes present or inclosed, surrounded by limits; as in a house; in a fort; in a city. It denotes a

state of being mixed, as sugar in tea; or combined, as carbonic acid in coal, or latent heat in air. It
denotes present in any state; as in sickness or health. It denotes present in time; as in that hour or
day.
Under these remarks, Webster mentioned the relations between in and other prepositions,
concluding thus: “in reason is equivalent to with reason; one in ten denotes one of that
number, and we say also one of ten, and one out of ten”. Webster treated the preposition at
in its relevant entry almost in the same way as he treated in. The contents of the entries on
in and at, as well as those on of and from, clearly indicate that Webster treated prepositions
in detail even in the entries which are not divided into sub-entries.

in Entries on Prepositions
As already analysed in the sub-section above, Johnson allocated 618 citations in total in 19
entries on prepositions. The sources of the citations are shown in the table below. This table
reveals significant tendencies which are not observable in entries on words for the letter L
and verbs of high frequency in his Dictionary.
Table 13: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary

Dryden 114 Bible 6 Newton 2 Ray 1
Shakespeare 89 Sidney 5 Hubbard 2 Phillips 1
134
Table 13: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary

(continued)

Locke 39 Cowley 5 Hayward 2 Otway 1
Bacon 35 Woodward 4 Grew 2 N. Fest 1
Addison 32 Taylor 4 Garth 2 Letter to Pable 1
of Dunciad
Swift 26 Stillingfleet 4 Donne 2 Hudibras 1

Tillotson 22 Rowe 4 Broome 2 Graunt 1
Pope 21 Felton 4 Atterbury 2 Gay 1
Milton 16 Denham 4 Ascham 2 Garretson 1
Boyle 14 Smith 3 Wotton 1 Fairfax 1
Hooker 10 Sandys 3 Wisemann 1 Dennis 1
South 9 L’Estrange 3 Whitgift 1 Allestree 1
Knolles 9 Hammond 3 Watts 1 Davies 1
Clarendon 9 Hale 3 Tusser 1 Calamy 1
Arbuthnot 9 Daniel 3 Tatler 1 Buckhurst 1
Smallridge 8 Collier 3 Tate 1 Brown 1
Waller 7 Cheyne 3 Suckling 1 Blackmore 1
Prior 7 Bentley 3 Stephens 1 Ayliffe 1
Ben Jonson 7 Spenser 2 Sprat 1 Advert 1
to Pope’s
Dunciad
Temple 6 Spectator 2 Rymer 1 Abbot 1
Burnet 6 Raleigh 2 Roscommon 1 ----- ---
Johnson’s practice of supplying citations in entries on prepositions is significant in two

respects. Firstly, Johnson hardly quoted from the Bible in these entries. As clarified in
Section 5.1.1, Johnson quoted from the Bible in first-order frequency in entries on verbs of
high frequency; biblical citations within this range account for 16.6%, or 249 citations out
of 1,496. Additionally, it was found in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.5.2 that he quoted from the
Bible in third-order frequency in entries on words for the letter L; 270 citations out of 4,047,
or 6.7% within this range, are taken from the Bible. In this way, in entries on verbs of high
frequency and those on words for the letter L, Johnson quoted quite frequently from the
Bible. Such a situation may seem to justify a widely accepted perspective that Johnson was
consistently a moralist in his selection of sources of citations (see Section 4.5.1). As far as
entries on prepositions are concerned, however, the table above manifests that Johnson
hardly quoted from the Bible; the biblical citations here account for less than 1.0%,
precisely 0.97%, or merely 6 citations out of 618.
135
Secondly, Johnson quoted from Dryden in first-order frequency here; citations from
Dryden within the range of entries on prepositions account for 18.4%, nineteen times as
many as biblical citations. The disparity between the number of citations from Dryden and
that from Shakespeare, the source from which Johnson quoted in second-order frequency, is
25; citations from Shakespeare account for 14.4% within the same range. This disparity is
never small when the situations in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high
frequency are taken into account. As the analysis in Section 4.1.1 revealed, Johnson quoted
most often from Shakespeare in entries on words for the letter L; citations from
Shakespeare account for 15.8%, or 640, and those from Dryden 11.9%, or 480, there. In
entries on verbs of high frequency, on which analyses were made in Section 5.1.2, the
percentages of citations from the two sources are almost the same; citations from
Shakespeare account for 11.0%, or 165, and those from Dryden 12.2%, or 183. When these
situations are taken into account, it can safely be said that Johnson intentionally quoted
especially frequently from Dryden in entries on prepositions.
In Webster’s case, he supplied 94 citations in entries on prepositions from the sources
indicated in the following table.
Table 14: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary

Bible 43 Waller 1 Richardson 1 Dennis 1
Dryden 11 Temple 1 Quart. Rev. 1 Denham 1
Shakespeare 6 Taylor 1 Philips 1 Clarendon 1
Bacon 4 Swift 1 Marshall 1 Cheyne 1
Tillotson 2 Spenser 1 Locke 1 Burnet 1
Pope 2 Spectator 1 Hooker 1 Boyle 1
Ben Jonson 2 Smalridge 1 Hale 1 ----- ---
Addison 2 Rymer 1 Franklin 1 ----- ---
On the one hand, Webster’s selection of sources revealed in this table partially reflects
Johnson’s practice. That is, he quoted from Dryden more frequently than from Shakespeare.
On the other hand, quite differently from Johnson, Webster supplied an abundance of
biblical citations in entries on prepositions. They account for 45.7% of all Webster’s
citations within this range. In entries on words for the letter L and those on verbs of high
frequency in Webster’s Dictionary, biblical citations account for 28.8% for the former and
32.6% for the latter. Additionally, Webster quoted far less frequently from the Bible than
Johnson in these two types of entries. In entries on prepositions, however, Webster’s
biblical citations greatly outnumber Johnson’s; this naturally means that Webster borrowed
quite a small number of biblical citations from Johnson within this range.
In this way, the analyses above show that entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary
are characterized by citations from Dryden, and those in Webster’s Dictionary by biblical
citations. In accordance with these characteristics, I will separately investigate Johnson’s
136
and Webster’s practice in supplying their citations in entries on prepositions; I will

investigate Johnson’s in Section 6.1.3 and Webster’s in Sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.5.
6.1.3 Johnson’s Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions
The table below shows the distribution of Johnson’s citations from Dryden in entries on
prepositions. The letter S here means sub-entries. The figures under D-1 indicate the
number of sub-entries in which Johnson supplied citations from Dryden together with those
from other sources, and those under D-2 the number of sub-entries in which he exclusively
supplied citations from Dryden.
Table 15: Citations from Dryden in Entries on Prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary
Entry- S D-1 D-2 Entry- S D-1 D-2 Entry- S D-1 D-2

words words words
about 6 2 --- from 21 9 3 over 7 3 ---
after 6 1 --- for 34 16 5 through 4 3 ---
at 17 6 3 in 8 1 --- to 24 10 4
before 12 6 2 into 3 1 --- upon 21 3 2
below 4 1 1 of 23 9 3 with 18 5 2
by 25 7 1 off 2 1 --- ----- --- --- ---
down 2 0 --- on 20 11 7 ----- --- --- ---
This table shows that Johnson quoted from Dryden in 95 sub-entries out of 257 on
prepositions, and that in 33 sub-entries out of the 95 he quoted exclusively from Dryden.
Citations from Dryden are thus widely dispersed within this range. How, then, did Johnson
make use of the citations in these two types of sub-entries? There are three answers to this
question; he used them to illustrate prepositional usage, to clarify the semantic concepts of
prepositions and to illustrate the synonymous definitions of prepositions. I will discuss each
of the uses below, referring to the contents of entries where he exclusively supplied
citations from Dryden.
Firstly, it is found that Johnson often made full use of citations from Dryden in
expressing his view of prepositional usage. Examples are:
J: ON. prep. 2.
It is put before any thing that is the subject of action.
Th’ unhappy husband, husband now no more,
Did on his tuneful harp his loss deplore. Dryden.
J: ON. prep. 12.

In forms of denunciation it is put before the thing threatned.
Hence on thy life; the captive maid is mine,
Whom not for price or pray’rs I will resign. Dryden.
137
In many of sub-entries where he provided such usage notes, Johnson exclusively supplied
citations from Dryden.
Secondly, in the following sub-entries Johnson quoted exclusively from Dryden to
indicate the semantic concepts of prepositions, using the word “noting” frequently:
J: FROM. prep. 12.

Out of. Noting the ground or cause of any thing.
They who believe that the praises which arise from valour are superiour to those which proceed
from any other virtues, have not considered. Dryden’s Virg. AEn. Dedication.
What entertainment can be raised from so pitiful a machine? We see the success of the battle
from the very beginning. Dryd.
‘Tis true from force the strongest titles spring. Dryden.
J: OF. prep. 14.

Noting the motive.
It was not of my own choice that I undertook this work. Dryden’s Dufresnoy.
Our sov’reign Lord has ponder’d in his mind
The means to spare the blood of gentle kind;
And of his grace and inborn clemency,
He modifies his severe decree. Dryden.
Such a practice of Johnson’s can be frequently observed in sub-entries on prepositions.

Other examples are observed in such sub-entries as ‘ON. prep. 3.’, “Noting addition or
accumulation”; ‘ON. prep. 4.’, “Noting a state of progression”; ‘ON. prep. 14.’, “Noting
invocation”; ‘ON. prep. 16.’, “Noting stipulation or condition”; ‘TO. prep. 7.’, “Noting
opposition”; ‘TO. preposition. 11.’, “Noting perception”; ‘TO. preposition. 16.’, “Noting
obligation”; ‘UPON. prep. 19.’, “Noting particular pace”; ‘WITH. prep. 2.’, “Noting the
means”; and ‘WITH. prep. 13.’, “Noting connection”. In the sub-entries mentioned here,
Johnson exclusively supplied citations from Dryden.
Thirdly, to illustrate the synonymous definitions of prepositions, Johnson occasionally
quoted only from Dryden as the following examples show:
J: BEFORE. prep. 9.
Preceding in time.
Particular advantages it has before all the books which have appeared before it in this kind.
Dryden’s Dufresnoy.
J: TO. preposition. 19.

Towards.
She stretch’d her arms to heav’n. Dryden.
In the examples above, Johnson indicated that before had a sense of “Preceding in time”
and that to could be used as a synonym of towards. These are thought to have been matters
of common knowledge among English speaking people at Johnson’s time, and he must
have seen innumerable phrases and sentences of other authors in which the two prepositions
were used in such senses. Actually, however, Johnson singled out the sentences from
Dryden to illustrate the senses of the words. There are 9 other examples of sub-entries in
which Johnson gave synonymous definitions of prepositions, quoting solely from Dryden:
138
‘BEFORE. prep. 1’, “Farther onward in place”; ‘BELOW. prep. 4’, “Unworthy of;
unbefitting”; ‘FOR. prep. 10’, “In comparative respect”; ‘FOR. prep. 21.’, “In exchange
for”; ‘FOR. prep. 23.’, “In supply of; to serve in the place of”; ‘FOR. prep. 37.’, “In
consequence of”; ‘FOR. prep. 38’, “In recompense of”; ‘OF. prep. 5’, “Out of”; and
‘UPON. prep. 10.’, “With respect to”.
Johnson used citations from Dryden mainly in three ways as analysed above. And it can
be said that the analysis strengthens the probability that Johnson was especially conscious
of Dryden’s phrases and sentences in his treatment of prepositions. The probability can also
be supported by another fact. In the entries on at and on, Johnson provided some sub-
entries to show the usage of the prepositions which he seems to have thought almost
peculiar to certain authors, namely, Dryden, Sir Matthew Hale, Shakespeare and Swift. In
order to show Hale’s, Shakespeare’s and Swift’s usage of the prepositions, Johnson
provided only one sub-entry for each of the authors; he also quoted only once each from
them. For instance, Johnson explained Hale’s usage of at in this way:
J: AT. prep. 10.

At sometimes signifies in consequence of.
Impeachments at the prosecution of the house of commons, have received their determinations
in the house of lords. Hale.
Concerning Dryden’s usage of the prepositions, however, Johnson provided 4 sub-entries

and supplied 5 citations:
J: AT. prep. 13.

At sometimes marks the occasion, like on.
Others, with more helpful care,
Cry’d out aloud, Beware, brave youth, beware.
At this he turn’d, and, as the bull drew near,
Shunn’d, and receiv’d him on his pointed spear. Dryden.
J: AT. prep. 14.

At sometimes seems to signify in the power of, or obedient to
But thou of all the kings, Jove’s care below,
Art least at my command, and most my foe. Dryd. Iliad.
J: AT. prep. 16.

At sometimes imports the manner of an action.
One warms you by degrees, the other sets you on fire all at once, and never intermits his heat.
Dryden’s Fables, Pref.
Not with less ruin than the Bajan mole,
At once comes tumbling down. Dryden’s AEneid.
J: ON. prep. 5.
It sometimes notes elevation.
Chuse next a province for thy vineyard’s reign,
On hills above, or in the lowly plain. Dryden.
139
Incidentally, the citations from Dryden here include the phrases at once and all at once.
According to the OED, the former began to be used as an idiom around 1200, and the latter
around 1300. Johnson, however, did not regard them as idioms, and solely tried to explain
the usage of at.
Thus, it becomes evident that Johnson was strongly conscious of Dryden’s phrases and
sentences in his treatment of prepositions. What could have been the reasons for this? It has
generally been acknowledged among authorities of Johnson that he frequently quoted from
Dryden in his Dictionary. Mildred Struble (1933:130), for instance, has pointed out that
“The name of Dryden is said to occur on every page” in Johnson’s Dictionary. William
Wimsatt (1941:86) thought about the reason from a literary viewpoint: “Dryden’s genius,
his learning, his prose style, his refinement of the language, offers some good examples of
Johnson’s essay style”. Rackstraw Downes was basically in line with Wimsatt when he
claimed that:
Shakespeare is sometimes obscure because of that ‘fullness of idea which might sometimes load
his words with more sentiment than they could conveniently carry’; then Cowley, like Shakespeare,
is found guilty of a careless use of low terms and colloquial diction, and to be ignorant of the ‘nice
discriminations’ of level first introduced by Dryden, ‘those happy combinations of words which
distinguish poetry from prose,’ called poetic diction. (At this point it becomes clear why Dryden,
rather than the announced Spenser and Sidney, is the poet of the Dictionary.) (Downes 1962:40)
As far as I can judge, however, little attention has been paid to the relations between
Johnson’s view of prepositional usage and his citations from Dryden. When the fact is
taken into account that Johnson was especially conscious of Dryden in treating prepositions,
such a climate among authorities seems quite strange. In order to know the relations, then,
it becomes inevitable here to make observations on Dryden’s usage of prepositions.
In the latter half of the seventeenth century, when men of letters became seriously
concerned about changes in the language, Dryden was an author who was especially careful
about prepositional usage. This can be proved by his revision of Essay on Dramatic Poesy.
Dryden published the first edition of this work in 1668, which allowed him to hold an
established position as a literary critic. It was in 1684 when he published the second edition
of the work, sixteen years after the first edition. There are few differences between the first
edition and the second in terms of contents. What motivated Dryden to revise the work was
the change in his view of prepositional usage. In the first edition of his Dramatic Poesy,
Dryden had often placed prepositions at the end of phrases and clauses, all of which he
eliminated in its second edition. This means that Dryden’s view of prepositional usage had
drastically changed by the year 1684. Concerning this change, Janet Bately and Irène
Simon made significant analyses, respectively. Bately analysed how Dryden eliminated
prepositions at the ends of phrases and clauses, or ‘terminal prepositions’ in her term. Part
of her analysis is worthy of quotation here in order to appreciate Dryden’s view of
prepositional usage in and after 1684. She has claimed as follows, showing some concrete
examples of Dryden’s ‘correction’ which was made in the second edition of Dramatic
Poesy:
When the clause is introduced by a relative pronoun, the alteration is usually a simple one, the
1684 edition removing the offending word from end-position and placing it before the relative
pronoun (1668, p. 18 ‘whom all the Story is built upon’; 1684, p. 13 ‘on whom all the Story is
140
built’ [...]). In one instance, however, the ‘preposition’ is removed altogether by substitution of a
transitive for an intransitive verb (1668, p. 65 ‘which they have not blown upon’; 1684, p. 45
‘which they have not us’d’). When the relative word is not a pronoun, then either the intransitive
verb is replaced by a transitive one (1668, p. 41 ‘a much higher degree [...] then the French Poets
can arrive at’; 1684, p. 29 ‘than the French Poets can, reasonably, hope to reach’), or that word is
deprived of its relative function, thus allowing the introduction of a relative pronoun regimen for
the ‘preposition’ (1668, A2v ‘such Arguments [...] as the fourth Act of Pompey will furnish me
with’; 1684, A2v ‘as those with which [...] furnish me’). If there is no relative word expressed, the
contact clause is either replaced by a clause with relative pronoun and the ‘preposition’ moved to
the head (1668, p. 3. ‘people you speak of’; 1684, p. 2 ‘people of whom you speak [...]’) or
retained with change of verb and consequent removal of the offending ‘preposition’ (1668, p. 33
‘all the Actor can perswade us to’; 1684, p. 23 ‘can insinuate into us’). (Bately 1964:269-270)
Based on such an analysis, Bately (1964:276) has claimed that Dryden eliminated ‘terminal
prepositions’ not for literary reasons but for grammatical reasons. In this regard, Simon
(1963:132-133) thought in the same way, saying that “Most of the changes [in Dryden’s
Dramatic Poesy] are indeed grammatical revisions, and many of them imply stricter usage,
whether according to current Restoration usage or to Dryden’s own sense of correctness”.
It seems that Johnson was aware of Dryden’s view of prepositional usage in and after
1684 and that he approved of it. As observed in Section 6.1.1, Johnson had a view that
prepositions should be placed before the words or phrases governed by them. Furthermore,
Johnson indicated the titles of Dryden’s works about 48 out of 114 citations from him
within the range of entries on prepositions. Out of the 48 citations, 32 are from the works
after 1684, the year when Dryden published the second edition of his Dramatic Poesy: 1
from Albion and Albanius (1685), 2 from Don Sebastian, King of Portugal (1690), 2 from
Satires of Decimus Junius Juvenalis (1693), 20 from Works of Virgil [...] Translated into
English Verse (1697) and 7 from Fables, Ancient and Modern (1700). As Wimsatt has
claimed in his statement quoted earlier in this sub-section, Johnson highly estimated
Dryden’s literary gifts. It is generally acknowledged that Johnson’s Life of Dryden (1779)
was written with special enthusiasm compared with other works of the series of “Lives of
the English Poets” (1779-1781). This work of Johnson’s was written from a literary
viewpoint, and it shows that he was generally in favour of Dryden’s works almost
independent of the point of when they were published. As to one of Dryden’s works in the
1650’s, Johnson remarked as follows:
It was not till the death of Cromwell, in 1658, that he [Dryden] became a publick candidate for
fame, by publishing Heroic Stanzas on the late Lord Protector; which, compared with the verses
of Sprat and Waller on the same occasion, were sufficient to raise great expectations of the rising
poet. (Johnson 1779:247)
Concerning Annus Mirabilis (1667), a work in the 1660’s, Johnson (1779:251) commented
that it “may be esteemed one of his [Dryden’s] most elaborate works”. Among the
authorities of Johnson as a man of letters, it is widely known that Absalom and Achitophel
(1681), which Dryden published in the 1680’s, won Johnson’s highest praise. Johnson
(1779:276) said of the work that “There is no need to enquire why those verses were read,
which, to all the attractions of wit, elegance, and harmony, added the co-operation of all the
factious passions, and filled every mind with triumph or resentment”. However, none of
141
these three titles of Dryden’s works, all of which were published before 1684, is seen in
entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. This is naturally thought to signify that
Johnson was essentially not a man of letters when he quoted from Dryden in the entries.
Instead, as already analysed in this sub-section, Johnson quite frequently quoted from
Dryden’s works in and after 1684 there. This fact strongly suggests that Johnson selected
Dryden’s phrases and sentences to be quoted in the entries based on his view of
prepositional usage.
Johnson’s practice of quoting from Dryden analysed above also indicates that Johnson
very frequently selected citations in entries on prepositions as a prescriptive grammarian.
Only when we understand this, can the reason why Johnson scarcely quoted from the Bible
be also explained. When Johnson referred to the Bible in the “Preface” to his Dictionary, he
(1755: n. pag. [7th (par. 62) in the “Preface”]) called it “the translation of the Bible”, not
the English Bible or simply the Bible. For Johnson as a grammarian, the English Bible was
essentially a translation whose language was affected by other languages. I already
discussed this in Section 1.4.2, but Johnson had a following belief:
No book was ever turned from one language into another, without imparting something of its
native idiom; this is the most mischievous and comprehensive innovation; single words may enter
by thousands, and the fabrick of the tongue continue the same, but new phraseology changes much
at once; it alters not the single stones of the building, but the order of the columns. (1755: n. pag.
[10th (par. 90) in the “Preface”])
If Johnson supplied citations in entries on prepositions basically as a prescriptive

grammarian who wanted to preserve the purity of the English language, it is little wonder
that he hardly quoted from the English Bible, which is a translation, there. We are now
required to distinguish Johnson as a grammarian who was reluctant to depend on the
language of the Bible from Johnson as a moralist who valued the contents of the Bible.
When we recognize Johnson’s reluctance of depending on translations in this way, it
may seem strange that Johnson quoted frequently from Dryden’s translation of Virgil
(Publius Vergillius Maro) in entries on prepositions. However, this does not cause a
problem, because Dryden had translated Virgil’s works after his establishment of his view
of prepositional usage which is thought to have been approved by Johnson.
6.1.4 Webster’s Biblical Citations in Entries on Prepositions
In this sub-section, I will focus my attention on the patterns of Webster’s use of biblical
citations of his own choice in entries on prepositions. Concerning the point of how he
modified Johnson’s citations from the Bible, this will be discussed in Section 6.1.5.
In entries on prepositions, Webster utilized biblical citations directly taken from the
Bible in three ways; supplying the citations, he indicated prepositional usage, explained the
semantic concepts of prepositions and gave the synonymous definitions of prepositions,
adding his invented examples from time to time.
Firstly, in the entries on after, before and through, Webster provided sub-entries to
indicate the usage of relevant prepositions, referring to citations from the Bible:
142
W: AFTER, prep. 2.
Later in time; as, after supper. This word often precedes a sentence, as a governing preposition.
After I have arisen, I will go before you into Galilee. Math. xxvi.
W: BEFORE, prep. 7.
Preceding in time.
Before I was afflicted, I went astray. Ps. cxix.
Before Abraham was, I am. John viii.
Here the preposition has a sentence following for an object.
W: THROUGH, prep. 4.
By means of; by the agency of; noting instrumentality. This signification is a derivative of the last.
Through the scent of water it will bud. Job xiv.
Sanctify them through thy truth. John xvii.
The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. vi.
In these examples, it is observed that Webster thought that before in the citations from Ps.
and John, which is usually regarded as a conjunction nowadays, belonged to the category of
prepositions. By contrast, Webster did not provide an entry on before as a conjunction.
Secondly, Webster tried to explain the semantic concepts of some prepositions, using the
word ‘noting’ as Johnson did. The following is an example in a sub-entry on for:
W: FOR, prep. 1.
Against; in the place of; as a substitute or equivalent, noting equal value or satisfactory
compensation, either in barter and sale, in contract, or in punishment.
Buy us and our land for bread. Gen. xlvii. 19.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand
for hand, foot for foot. Ex. xxi.
As the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom
for many. Matt. xx. See also Mark viii. 37. Matt. xvi. 26.
Other sub-entries where Webster supplied biblical citations as the aids of his explanations
with the word ‘noting’ are ‘BEFORE, prep. 3’, ‘ON, prep. 12’, ‘TO, prep. 5’, ‘TO, prep. 6’,
‘UPON, prep. 12’, ‘WITH, prep. 2’.
The third pattern of Webster’s use of biblical citations in entries on prepositions is that
Webster added his invented examples to biblical citations; Webster tried to clarify the usage
of some prepositions by doing this. Examples are:
W: OVER, prep. 2.
Above in place or position; opposed to below; as the clouds over our heads. The smoke rises over
the city.
The mercy-seat that is over the testimony. Ex.xxx.
W: THROUGH, prep. 5.
Over the whole surface or extent; as, to ride through the country.
Their tongue walketh through the earth. Ps. lxxiii.
Other examples of this type of use of biblical citations are found in sub-entries ‘ON, prep.
2’ and ‘ON, prep. 12’.
143
As analysed above, three patterns are found in Webster’s use of biblical citations in
entries on prepositions.
6.1.5 Other Characteristics of Webster’s Use of Verbal Examples

in Entries on Prepositions in His Dictionary
Though not so often, Webster borrowed citations which had been supplied in entries on
prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. In conjunction with this, there are some aspects to be
investigated. They are Webster’s practice in borrowing Johnson’s citations and the
difference between the two lexicographers in respect of their view of the senses and usage
of some prepositions. I will investigate these aspects one by one. And this observation will
necessitate reference to Webster’s invented examples supplied in entries on prepositions,
which I will make collaterally.
(1) Webster’s Practice in Borrowing Johnson’s Citations

As he did in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency, Webster basically
shortened Johnson’s biblical citations in entries on prepositions. The following is one of the
examples:
J: ABOUT. prep. 1.
Round, surrounding, encircling.
Let not mercy and truth forsake thee. Bind them about thy neck; write them
upon the table of thy heart. Proverbs, iii. 3.
----------
W: ABOUT, prep. 1.
Around; on the exterior part of surface.
Bind them about thy neck. Prov. iii. 3. Isa. l.
He also shortened Johnson’s citations from sources other than the Bible:
J: TO. preposition. 12.

Noting the subject of an affirmation.
I trust, I may not trust thee; for thy word
Is but the vain breath of a common man:
Believe me, I do not believe thee, man;
I have a king’s oath to the contrary. Shakesp. King John.
----------
W: TO, prep. 12.
Noting the subject of an affirmation.
I have a king’s oath to the contrary. Shak.
In entries on prepositions, however, Webster did not always shorten Johnson’s citations as
shown above. That is, Webster occasionally copied the whole of Johnson’s relatively long
citations as they are there. Such a practice of Webster’s can be observed, for instance, in the
following excerpts from the entry on for, the entry where Webster supplied the most
numerous citations within the range of entries on prepositions:
144
J: FOR. prep. 4. / W: FOR, prep. 5.

If a man can be fully assured of any thing for a truth, without having examined, what is there that
he may not embrace for truth? Locke.
J: FOR. prep. 7. / W: FOR, prep. 7.

Shall I think the world was made for one,
And men are born for kings, as beasts for men,
Not for protection, but to be devoured. Dryden.
[Here, Webster modified the 3rd line of Johnson's citation which is “Not for protection, but to be
devour'd. Dryd. Span. Fryar.”. K.M.]
The citations above have in common that most phrases and clauses of them include the
entry-word for. Webster copied the whole of Johnson’s citations on such an occasion. We
can see other examples in the eighth and fourteenth sub-entries on the word in his
Dictionary. This practice of Webster’s cannot be regarded as accidental or irregular. The
first sub-entry of the entry on for partly proves it. In this sub-entry, Webster explained
prepositional usage, quoting a biblical sentence of his own choice which includes the
relevant preposition 3 times:
W: FOR. prep. 1.
“And Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for flocks, and for the cattle of the
herds;” that is, according to the original, he gave them bread against horses, like the Gr. .2 and
Fr. contre, Gen. xlvii.17.
(2) Webster’s and Johnson’s View of the Senses of Some Prepositions

Webster’s citations in the entry on for also suggest that he thought of the senses of some
prepositions differently from Johnson. In the following two sets of examples, citations
Webster borrowed from Johnson show that the former unified the senses of prepositions
discriminated by the latter:
J: FOR. prep. 4.
In the character of.
She thinks you favour’d:
But let her go, for an ungrateful woman. A. Phillips.
J: FOR. prep. 5.
With resemblance of.
I hear for certain, and do speak the truth,
The gentle York is up. Shakespeare’s Henry IV. p. ii.
----------
W: FOR, prep. 5.
In the character of; noting resemblance; a sense derived from substitution or standing in the place
of [...].
But let her go for an ungrateful woman. Phillips.
I hear for certain, and do speak the truth. Shak.
J: FOR. prep. 1.
Because of.
145
For as much as it is a fundamental law in the Turkish empire, that they may, without any other
provocation, make war upon Christendom for the propagation of their laws; so the Christians may
at all times, as they think good, be upon the prevention. Bacon’s War with Spain.
J: FOR. prep. 32.
With intention of.
Here huntsmen with delight may read
How to chuse dogs for scent or speed. Waller.
----------
W: FOR. prep, 14.
Because; on account of; by reason of. He cried out for anguish. I cannot go for want of time.
How to choose dogs for scent or speed. Waller.
For as much as it is a fundamental law – Bacon.
(3) Webster’s and Johnson’s View of the Usage of Some Prepositions

Webster sometimes cross-referred to entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary. The
investigation of this aspect is helpful in order to know how Webster’s view of prepositional
usage differs from Johnson’s. In the entry on by, for instance, Johnson commented on a
difference between with and by. According to Johnson, when the two prepositions were
used to express the concept of instrumental, with should follow transitive verbs, and by
intransitive verbs. He tried to make this view clear by supplying 1 citation from Dryden and
2 invented examples in a relevant sub-entry:
J: BY. prep. 2.
It notes the instrument, and is always used after a verb neuter, where with would be put after an
active; as, he was killed with a sword; he died by a sword.
But by Pelides’ arms when Hector fell,
He chose AEneas, and he chose as well. Dryden, AEn. vi.
Webster, on the other hand, said as follows in the entry on with in his Dictionary, referring
to Johnson’s invented verbal examples supplied in the entry on by in his Dictionary:
W: WITH, prep. after 15.

With and by are closely allied in many of their uses, and it is not easy to lay down a rule by which
their uses may be distinguished. It is observed by Johnson that with seems rather to denote an
instrument, and by a cause; as, he killed an enemy with a sword, but he died by an arrow. But this
rule is not always observed.
Undeniably, Webster misunderstood Johnson’s intention here; instead of relating with to

transitive verbs and by to intransitive verbs, Webster discussed the relation between with
and an instrument and that between by and a cause. Still, this instance shows that Webster
extensively referred to entries on prepositions in Johnson’s Dictionary, and how Webster’s
view of with and by differs from Johnson’s. Incidentally, Webster indicated another usage
of by in the entry on the preposition, supplying 2 examples invented by him:
W: BY, prep. 8.
On; as, “to pass by land or water;” “great battles by sea and land.” In the latter phrase, at or on
might be substituted for by.
146
Johnson did not provide its corresponding usage note anywhere in the entry on by in his
Dictionary.
(4) Webster’s Invented Examples

The analyses above also reveal that Webster supplied his invented examples quite
frequently in entries on prepositions, as part of which was already referred to in passing in
the analyses made so far. Actually, Webster supplied numerous invented examples in the
entries. The number of them in respective entries is as shown in the table below.
Table 16: Invented Examples in Entries on Prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary
Entry- Invented Entry- Invented Entry- Invented Entry- Invented

words words words words
about 3 by 27 into 16 through 7
after 4 down 6 of 31 to 35
at 34 from 10 off 3 upon 31
before 4 for 35 on 30 with 14
below 2 in 18 over 12 ----- -----
This table indicates that Webster supplied 322 invented verbal examples within the range of
entries on prepositions in his Dictionary. He allocated this type of verbal example in 173
sub-entries on prepositions. Specifically, Webster invented at least one verbal example for
each of sub-entries on prepositions with the only exceptions of ‘BEFORE, prep. 1.’,
‘BELOW, prep. 1.’ and ‘BELOW, prep. 3’.
Johnson supplied citations in entries on prepositions differently from those on words for the
letter L and verbs of high frequency. This is also true about Webster. With regard to biblical
citations, while Johnson seldom supplied them for illustrating the senses and usage of
prepositions, Webster generously supplied them for the purpose. These practices are
entirely opposite to those in two other types of entries. Besides, it is also significant in
entries on prepositions that Johnson quoted from Dryden especially frequently. This is
thought to have resulted from Johnson’s approval of Dryden’s prepositional usage which
had been formulated by the year 1684, 71 years before Johnson’s Dictionary. Actually, the
analyses of Johnson’s citations from Dryden within the range of entries on prepositions
reveal that the citations were frequently supplied when Johnson expressed his view of
English grammar and usage.
In general, both Johnson and Webster treated prepositions from a grammatical viewpoint.
This is a point which becomes clarified through the analyses of Johnson’s use of citations
from Dryden and Webster’s use of biblical citations. Their elaboration in the grammatical
147
treatment of prepositions can also be confirmed by their provision of invented verbal

examples. Johnson occasionally supplied his invented examples in entries on prepositions,
which was rarely performed in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency.
In Webster’s case, he supplied his invented examples quite frequently to illustrate the usage
of prepositions.
6.2 Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs
6.2.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Prepositional Adverbs
There are particles which have two functions; they sometimes function as prepositions and
sometimes as adverbs. When such particles function as adverbs, they are called
prepositional adverbs or adverbial particles. As Randolph Quirk et al. (1985:1151) have
pointed out, the most obvious difference between prepositions and prepositional adverbs is
that “where prepositions require a following noun phrase as a prepositional complement,
there is no such requirement for adverbs”. Both Johnson and Webster recognized this basic
distinction between prepositions and prepositional adverbs. The table below shows the
practices of their treatment of prepositional adverbs; in this table, the letters S and C
indicate the number of sub-entries and citations, respectively.
Table 17: Sub-entries and Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs


Entry- S C S C Entry- S C S C
words words
about 6 9 4 2 in 6 12 --- ---
after 2 3 1 --- off 8 10 7 2
before 7 8 4 3 on 6 15 5 ---
below 3 8 4 1 over 11 44 8 2
by 3 7 --- --- throug 2 5 3 ---
h
down 6 7 7 --- to 4 8 --- ---
This table indicates that Johnson allocated a total of 136 citations in 12 entries on
prepositional adverbs, or an average of 11.2 citations per entry. As to Webster, he allocated
10 citations in 9 entries, or an average of 1.1 citations per entry. With regard to the number
of sub-entries, Johnson provided 64 sub-entries in 12 entries, and Webster 43 sub-entries in
9 entries, an average for Johnson 2.1 citations per sub-entry and for Webster of 0.23. These
figures are almost the same as those in the case of entries on prepositions; Table 12 in
Section 6.1.1 indicates that Johnson supplied 2.3 citations per sub-entry on average and
Webster 0.54 within the respective ranges of entries on prepositions.
148

in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs
The following is a table which shows how Johnson selected sources of citations for entries
on prepositional adverbs.
Table 18: Sources of Citations in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs


Dryden 24 Wiseman 2 Spenser 1 Hooker 1
Shakespeare 21 Waller 2 Smith 1 Hayward 1
Locke 10 Prior 2 Smalridge 1 Hale 1
Bacon 9 Knolles 2 Sandys 1 Grew 1
South 5 Daniel 2 Sanderson 1 Floyer 1
Milton 5 Collier 2 Rowe 1 Denham 1
Bible 4 Arbuthnot 2 Roscommon 1 Allestree 1
Watts 3 Woodward 1 Philips 1 Crashaw 1
Sidney 3 Tickell 1 Peacham 1 Blackmore 1
Pope 3 Taylor 1 Oldham 1 Bentley 1
L’Estrange 3 Tatler 1 Newton 1 Baker 1
Atterbury 3 Swift 1 Mortimer 1 Addison 1
This table illustrates two tendencies. Firstly, Johnson was conscious of Dryden and made
light of the Bible here. This tendency is the same as the one in entries on prepositions
which was clarified in Section 6.1.2. To be specific, citations from Dryden within the range
of entries on prepositional adverbs account for 17.6%, being quoted by far the most
frequently. In contrast to this, Johnson quoted no more than 4 times from the Bible here;
biblical citations within this range account for 2.9%. Secondly, Johnson carefully selected
phrases and sentences. In the case of entries on prepositions, he supplied 618 citations from
83 sources, that is, he quoted 7.4 times on average from one source. However, he supplied
136 citations from 48 sources in entries on prepositional adverbs, quoting 2.8 times on
average from one source here. Table 18 also shows that Johnson quoted only once each
from 29 sources out of the 48.
As for Webster, it is not necessary to provide a table to show his selection of sources of
citations in entries on prepositional adverbs since the sources are quite small in number. It
will be sufficient to indicate here that he supplied 6 citations from the Bible and 1 citation
each from Shakespeare, Sanderson, Prior and Dryden.
149
6.2.3 Johnson’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs
As he did in entries on prepositions, Johnson occasionally supplied citations to support his

grammatical explanation in entries on prepositional adverbs. He performed this in 6 sub-
entries out of the relevant 64: ‘ABOUT. adv. 5’, ‘OVER. adv. 7’, ‘TO. adv. 1’, ‘TO. adv. 3’,
‘OVER. adv. 13’, ‘AFTER. adv. 1’,
The citations supplied in these 6 sub-entries reflect Johnson’s normative criteria of the
language and the aspects of English usage which he was especially interested in. I will
analyse the contents of the 6 sub-entries one by one to make Johnson’s practice clear.
In one of the sub-entries on about, Johnson treated about as follows:
J: ABOUT. adv. 5.
With to before a verb; as, about to fly, upon the point, within a small distance of.
These dying lovers, and their floating sons,
Suspend the fight, and silence all our guns:
Beauty and youth, about to perish, finds
Such noble pity in brave English minds. Waller.
It is manifest here that Johnson supplied a citation from Waller to support his explanation
of the usage of the word; he italicized the word to as well as about in this citation.
In a sub-entry on over, he referred to over as follows, based on his view of parts of
speech:
J: OVER. adv. 7.
Past. This is rather the sense of an adjective.
Soliman pausing a little upon the matter, the heat of his fury being something over; suffered
himself to be intreated. Knolles’s Hist. of the Turks.
Mediate upon the effects of anger; and the best time to do this, is to look back upon anger when
the fit is over. Bacon.
What the garden choicest bears
To sit and taste, till this meridian heat
Be over, and the sun more cool decline. Milton.
[Three other citations from Taylor, Atterbury and Pope are omitted. K.M.]
Johnson provided the following sub-entries in the entry on to, which clearly show his
grammatical view of the prepositional adverb:
J: TO. adv. 1.
A particle coming between two verbs, and noting the second as the object of the first.
The delay of our hopes teaches us to mortify our desires. Smallridge.
J: TO. adv. 3.
After an adjective it notes its object.
We ready are to try our fortunes
To the last man. Shakesp. Henry IV. p.ii.
The lawless sword his childrens blood shall shed,
Increast for slaughter, born to beg their bread. Sandys.
150
In a sub-entry on over, Johnson referred to the formation of compound words:
J: OVER. adv. 13.

In composition it has a great variety of significations; it is arbitrarily prefixed to nouns, adjectives,
or other parts of speech in a sense equivalent to more than enough; too much.
Devilish Macbeth,
By many of these trains hath sought to win me
Into his pow’r: and modest wisdom plucks me
From over-credulous haste. Shakesp. Macbeth.
St. Hierom reporteth, that he saw a satyr; but the truth hereof I will not rashly impugn, or over-
boldly affirm. Peach.
These over-busy spirits, whose labour is their only reward, hunt a shadow and chase the wind.
Decay of Piety.
[Sixteen other citations are omitted: 1 each from Allestree, Floyer, Collier, Atterbury, Mortimer; 2
each from Wiseman and Watts; 3 each from Dryden; and 4 from Locke. K.M.]
In this sub-entry all citations include compound words with over. Other citations omitted
here include such words as over-busy, over-fermentation, over-cold, over-care, o’erfeeds,
o’er-fill’d, over-digestion, over-flourish, over-confidence, over-diligently, over-fondness,
over-dose, over-acted, over-burn, over-fatigue and over-greedy. This type of compound
word seems to have interested Johnson greatly. Actually, he was not satisfied with only
listing the words. He even provided no less than 60 entries on words beginning with over-.
In this regard, the following statement of Johnson’s in the “Preface” to his Dictionary does
not accord with his practice:
Compounded or double words I have seldom noted, except when they obtain a signification
different from that which the components have in their simple state. Thus highwayman, woodman,
and horsecourser, require an explication; but of thieflike or coachdriver no notice was needed,
because the primitives contain the meaning of the compounds. (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [4th (par.
33) in the “Preface”])
Johnson added invented examples which are sentences to citations in one of the sub-entries
on prepositional adverbs where he provided a usage note:
J: AFTER. adv. 1.
In succeeding time. It is used of time mentioned as succeeding some other. So we cannot say, I
shall be happy after, but hereafter; but we say, I was first made miserable by the loss, but was
after happier.
Far be it from me, to justify the cruelties which were at first used towards them, which had their
reward soon after. Bacon.
The chief were those who, from the pit of hell
Roaming to seek their prey on earth, durst fix
Their seats long after next the seat of God. Paradise Lost.
One of the two invented examples here is an instance of the ‘wrong’ use of after, and the
other is that of the ‘correct’ use of the same word.
The contents of the 6 sub-entries above shows that Johnson supplied a relatively small
number of citations with his usage notes, excluding the cases of ‘OVER. adv. 7’ and
151
‘OVER. adv. 13’. He supplied 1 citation each in ‘ABOUT. adv. 5’ and ‘TO. adv. 1’; 2
citations in ‘TO. adv. 3’; and 3 citations in ‘AFTER. adv. 1’. It can be said that when he
provided usage notes in entries on prepositional adverbs, he tended to put them ahead of
citations. As to the two sub-entries on over, they show that Johnson exceptionally supplied
many citations when he explained the usage which interested him most. Such a tendency
can be confirmed by the contents of the 2 sub-entries below; in these, Johnson provided
usage notes and invented examples without any citations:
J: OFF. adv. 1.
Of this adverb the chief use is to conjoin it with verbs: as, to come off ; to fly off ; to take off, which
are found under the verbs.
J: OFF. adv. 6.
It signifies any kind of disappointment; defeat; interruption; adverse division: as, the affairs is off;
the match is off.
However, this practice signifies the probability that Johnson carefully selected phrases and
sentences when he quoted them to illustrate his view of the usage of prepositional adverbs.
In this regard, Ronald Wells once claimed the following on the assumption that every
single sub-entry in Johnson’s Dictionary included citations:
With Johnson's work, the inductive principle becomes firmly established in English lexicographic
tradition. To the glosses, the compilations, and the hard word lists of his predecessors, Johnson
added a new empiricism, a wide ranging program of reading in diverse sources. By recording from
his reading particular instances of usage, Johnson could then proceed by induction to a general
definition of meaning. (Wells 1973:21)
This claim is not necessarily true about sub-entries on prepositional adverbs, as the
examples observed so far prove. Certainly, Johnson most often referred to wide range of
English literature in determining senses of words as evident in entries on verbs of high
frequency. However, it is not correct to think that he did this consistently throughout the
entire compilation process. Incidentally, Johnson sometimes did not supply citations for
determining the senses of prepositional adverbs, as well as explaining their usage. For
instance, the following sub-entries do not include any citations:
J: DOWN. adv. 2.
Tending towards the ground.
J: ON. adv. 4.
Not off.
These sub-entries also suggest that Wells’s claim may be incorrect. Johnson did not always
rely on inductive principles.
152
6.2.4 Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositional Adverbs
Webster did more than define prepositional adverbs in 5 entries out of 9 indicated in Table
17 in Section 6.2.1: after, before, down, on and over. Specifically, he provided usage
notes 9 times: twice each in the entries on after, down, on and over, and once in the entry
on before. In these entries, he basically supplied invented examples in explaining the usage
of their relevant words, and did not supply a single citation. This situation necessitates
clarifying two aspects of Webster’s habit of supplying verbal examples. One is his way of
supplying invented examples, and the other is that of supplying citations. In the following
analysis, I will firstly categorize the 9 usage notes to clarify Webster’s practice of using
invented examples, and then give an account of his use of citations.
In the entries on after and before, Webster expressed his view of after and before in
terms of parts of speech:
W: AFTER, adv.
Posterior; later in time; as, it was about the space of three hours after. In this sense, the word,
however, is really a preposition, the object being understood; about three hours after the time or
fact before specified.
W: BEFORE, adv.
In some of the examples of the use of before, which Johnson places under the adverb, the word is a
preposition governing a sentence; as, “Before the hills appeared.” This is the real construction,
however overlooked or misunderstood.
Incidentally, it is hardly possible to decide which of Johnson’s citations Webster referred to

in the entry on before above. However, Webster’s statement here implies that he regarded
some words which modern grammarians think subordinate conjunctions as prepositions.
In the entry on on, Webster tried to elucidate the usage of on, by comparing it with the
usage of under, off and within:
W: ON, adv.
On, when it expresses contact with the surface of a thing, is opposed to under, off, or within, and
when it expresses contact with the side of a thing, is opposed to off.
In the entries on down and on, Webster referred to elliptical expressions, supplying
invented phrases and sentences. He discussed ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ elliptical
expressions:
W: DOWN, adv.
Locke uses it for go down, or received; as, any kind of food will down: but the use is not elegant,
nor legitimate.
W: DOWN, adv.
It is sometimes used without a verb, as down, down; in which cases, the sense is
known by the construction.
Down with him, signifies, throw him.
Down, down, may signify, come down, or go down, or take down, lower.
153
W: ON, adv.
On is sometimes used as an exclamation, or rather as a command to move or proceed, some verb
being understood; as, cheerly on, courageous friends; that is, go on, move on.
One of the usage notes in the entry on over concerns the semantic concept of the word:
W: OVER, adv.
Over is used with rolling or turning from side to side; as, to turn over, to roll over.
It can be said that the 7 examples above indicate that Webster was conscious of the usage of
prepositional adverbs, the use of elliptical expressions and the distinction between
prepositions and prepositional adverbs. And he supplied invented examples to call the
dictionary reader’s attention to the points.
The remaining 2 usage notes concern compound words. Like Johnson, Webster also
seems to have had a keen interest in this type of word. He, however, treated the words in a
different way. In the entry on over, Webster commented on compound words with over as
follows:
W: OVER, adv.
Over, in composition, denotes spreading, covering above; as in overcast, overflow; or across, as to
overhear, or above, as to overhang; or turning, changing sides, as in overturn; or more generally
beyond, implying excess or superiority, as in overact, overcome.
It was analysed in the previous sub-section that Johnson also referred to compound words
with over with the recognition that over in them had the sense “more than enough; too
much” only; Johnson did not mention any other senses of the word. Differently from this
practice, Webster pointed out the senses of “spreading, covering above”, “across” and
“changing sides”, as well as “excess or superiority”, of the same word here in relation to
relevant compound words. In this sense, Webster can be said to have been more skilful than
Johnson in discriminating the senses of the word.
Webster also referred to compound words with after in its relevant entry as follows:
W: AFTER, adv.
After is prefixed to many words, forming compounds, but retaining its genuine signification. Some
of the following words are of this kind, but in some of them after seems rather to be a separate
word.
Saying this, Webster provided many entries on the relevant compound words as his words
“Some of the following words are of this kind [...]” indicate. That is, the last part of the
entry on after in Webster’s Dictionary is also an introductory remark to entries on the
relevant compound words. After this statement concerning compound words with after,
Webster provided 50 entries on the words including after-account, after-ages, after-band,
after-birth and after-clap. This practice is quite different from Johnson’s. Though Johnson
provided 25 entries on compound words composed of after and other words, he did not
refer to them in the entry on after.
Additionally, Webster differed from Johnson in giving a grammatical account of
compound words. It was also confirmed in Section 6.2.3 that Johnson did not expound on
154
compound words. In Webster’s case, he clearly commented on compound words with

prepositional adverbs in the section ‘Adverbs or Modifiers’ in the “Grammar” attached to
his Dictionary:
[...] they [prepositional adverbs] are prefixed and become a part of the word, as overcome,
underlay. In these uses, these words modify or change the sense of the verb, and when prefixed, are
united with the verb in orthography. (Webster 1828: n. pag. [17th in the “Grammar”])
The discussion above concerns entries on prepositional adverbs in Webster’s Dictionary

where he provided usage notes. It is clear now that he supplied only invented examples in
such entries. In what way, then, did Webster make use of a small number of citations,
namely 10 in number, in entries on prepositional adverbs? The answer to this question is
that he supplied citations there exclusively for the purpose of illustrating his synonymous
definitions of entry-words.
As I mentioned at the end of Section 6.2.2, Webster supplied 6 citations from the Bible
and 4 from other sources within the range of entries on prepositional adverbs. As to the
former, he eliminated 2 biblical citations out of 4 which Johnson supplied in entries on
prepositional adverbs in his Dictionary. This means that Webster borrowed 2 citations from
Johnson’s Dictionary and took 4 directly from the Bible. The principle of Webster’s
selection of biblical citations for illustrating the senses of prepositional adverbs is
apparently the same as the one revealed in the analyses of entries on verbs of high
frequency and prepositions. That is, he often preferred linguistic conciseness to biblical
authority.
To be concrete, Webster eliminated Johnson’s biblical citations supplied in sub-entries
‘ABOUT. adv. 8’ and ‘OVER. adv. 6’ in his Dictionary. One of them is this relatively long
sentence:
J: ABOUT. adv. 8.
To come about; to come to some certain state or point.
Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about, after Hannah had conceived, that
she bare a son. 1 Sam. i. 20.
And he took clauses from Johnson’s biblical citations which were supplied in ‘OVER. adv.
2’ and ‘OVER. adv. 1’, and supplied them in ‘OVER, adv. 7’ and ‘OVER, adv. 6’ in his
Dictionary. An example is:
J: OVER. adv. 2.
More than a quantity assigned.
And when they had mete it, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little
had no lack. Ex. xvi. 18.
----------
W: OVER, adv. 7.
More than the quantity assigned; beyond a limit.
He that gathered much had nothing over. Ex. xvi.
The examples above suggest the probability that Webster valued brevity highly in
supplying biblical citations and that the religious implications of the citations were of
155
second importance for him. The biblical sentences which he took from the original source
strongly support the probability. All of the 4 citations consist of less than 10 words, as
shown below:
W: ABOUT, adv. 1.
Near to in number or quantity.
There fell that day about three thousand men. Ex. xxxii.
W: ABOUT, adv. 3.
Here and there; around; in one place and another.
Wandering about from house to house. 1. Tim. v.
W: BEFORE, adv. 3.
Further onward in place, in progress, or in front.
Reaching forth to those things which are before. Phil. iii.
W: BEFORE, adv. 4.
In front; on the fore part.
The battle was before and behind. 2 Chron. xiii.
As to Webster’s citations from sources other than the Bible, all of which were borrowed
from Johnson’s Dictionary, he also shortened them in most cases. Examples are:
J: BEFORE. adv. 6.
Already.
You tell me, mother, what I knew before,
The Phrygian fleet is landed on the shore. Dryden’s AEneid.
----------
W: BEFORE, adv. 1.
In time preceding.
You tell me what I knew before. Dryden.
J: BELOW. adv. 2.
On earth; in opposition to heaven.
The fairest child of Jove,
Below for ever sought, and bless’d above. Prior.
----------
W: BELOW, adv. 2.
On the earth, as opposed to the heavens.
The fairest child of Jove below. Prior.
Within the range of entries on prepositional adverbs, there is only one time when Webster
copied Johnson’s citation as it is. It is the following one:
The questions no way touch upon puritanism, either off or on. Sanderson.
However, it may safely be said that this citation can in no way be shortened further, since
this sentence was quoted in the entry on the italicized word in it.
156
In entries on prepositional adverbs, Webster consistently tried hard to make citations as

short as possible, whether they may be from the Bible or other sources. This is also a
practice which was observed in the case of entries on prepositions. However, differently
from that case, in entries on prepositional adverbs Webster exclusively used citations for
illustrating the senses, or his synonymous definitions, of related words, rather than for
exemplifying their usage. When exemplifying the usage of prepositional adverbs, Webster
preferred to depend on his invented examples.
The fact that Johnson and Webster provided entries on prepositional adverbs apart from
those on prepositions shows that they were strongly conscious of English grammar and
usage in the compilation of their dictionaries. Besides, both of them did not supply citations
often when they indicated the usage of these words. However, this does not mean that they
were unaware of the importance of verbal examples in indicating the usage of prepositional
adverbs. In Johnson’s case, he carefully selected phrases and sentences for citations to
exemplify his usage notes. When he was unable to find phrases and sentences which
accorded with his normative criteria in the literature he referred to, he supplied invented
examples against his usual practice. As to Webster, he supplied invented examples very
frequently when providing usage notes for the words. Furthermore, Webster did not make
use of a single citation for the purpose. Additionally, both Johnson and Webster also treated
compound words in conjunction with prepositional adverbs. In this respect, Webster’s task
was more skilfully performed than Johnson’s. While Johnson treated compound words only
in the entry on over, Webster expounded on the words in the entry on after, as well as in
the entry on over. Besides, Webster discriminated the senses of their relevant prepositional
adverbs in more detail than Johnson, supplying adequate examples of the words.
7: Verbal Examples for Adjective-preposition
and Verb-preposition Collocations
7.1 The Purpose of This Chapter
Sections 5.1.4 and 6.1.1 to 6.1.6 revealed that Johnson and Webster had been keenly
interested in the treatment of prepositional usage, respectively. My intention in this chapter
lies in detailing similarities and differences between the two lexicographers in respect of
their view of prepositions. It is generally agreed among grammarians that solving the
problem of which prepositions collocate with which adjectives and verbs is highly
important. This is also applicable to lexicographers. Accroding to Stefania Nuccorini
(2003:372), “Strictly speaking grammatical collocations concern prepositional phrases or,
rather, the prepositions obligatorily or typically used either after or before a lexical word
(verbs, nouns, adjectives)”; she has remarked thus, analysing how the lexicographers of
modern English collocational dictionaries have tackled the points. In eighteenth-century
Britain, there were especially heated arguments surrounding this point, as Sterling Leonard
(1962:112) has remarked this based on his perusal of various documents which were
published at that time: “An extraordinary elaboration is devoted to rules on uses of
prepositions”. It is hardly conceivable that Johnson was not part of this historical context;
as analysed in Sections 1.4 and 3.2, he was fully aware of and conscious of the climate
among grammarians at his time. As for Webster, it is also very probable that he, as a
grammarian, paid particular attention to adjective-preposition and verb-preposition
collocations.
According to Randolph Quirk et. al. (1989:1221), the adjective-preposition collocation is
labelled “adjective complementation by a prepositional phrase”, and characterised as
follows:
The lexical bond is strongest with adjectives for which, in a given sense, the complementation is
obligatory. (Quirk et. al. 1989:1221)
As to the verb-preposition collocation, Quirk et. al. (1989:1155) also remarked that it
“consists of a lexical verb followed by a preposition with which it is semantically and/or
syntactically associated”, terming the combination a ‘prepositional verb’. I will adopt these
definitions here. The verb-preposition collocation is usually regarded as different from the
phrasal verb in some respects. That is, in verb-preposition collocations, the relevant particle
always functions as a preposition, not as an adverb, the collocation retaining the original
senses of the relevant verb, and the verb preceding the preposition is usually intransitive
except for a small number of cases. With this recognition in mind, I will survey how
Johnson and Webster treated the two types of collocations and supplied verbal examples for
them.
158
7.2 Survey of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of the Collocations
In their dictionaries, both Johnson and Webster provided a considerable number of sub-
entries for giving guidance on the usage of the two types of collocations, often supplying
verbal examples. The following table shows the result of the analyses. Examples have been
collected with reference to Randolph Quirk, et. al.’s relevant discussion (1989:433 and
1150-1233) and their treatment in the OALD; 44 examples will be adequate for the
concerns of this chapter. The column ‘Adjectives/Verbs’ indicates relevant adjectives and
verbs. The column ‘Prepositions’ indicates the prepositions which Johnson or Webster
claimed to be regularly used with these verbs and adjectives. J and W refer to Johnson’s
Dictionary and Webster’s, respectively. The figures under J and W show the number of
relevant citations; those in parentheses indicate how many invented examples Webster
supplied for relevant collocations.
Table 19: Verbal Examples Supplied for Adjective-preposition

and Verb-preposition Collocations in Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries
Adjective/Verbs Prepositions J W Adjective/Verbs Prepositions J W

abstain from 3 --- consist in/of --- 2
account for --- 0(1) count upon 1 ---
acquaint of --- 0(1) delighted with --- 1
act upon --- 0(2) depend from/on/ --- 1(5)
upon
afraid of 2 1 disgust, at/with/from 3 0(2)
disgusted
agree to/with --- 0(2) glad of/at/with 5 2(1)
angry at/with 3 2 impatient of/at/for/ --- 0(6)
under
apologize for 2 0(1) independent on/of/from 2 0
apply to 4 --- insist on --- 0(2)
argue with/against 2 --- intent to/on --- 1
ashamed of 3 2 invest in/with 3 0(3)
associate with 0 0(1) mad on/after/of/ 3 2(2)
for
averse from/to 5 0 object to/against 6 ---
aware of --- 0 pleased in/with --- 0
believe in/on 3 2 prefer above/ 5 2
before/to
capable of 1 0(2) proud of 3 0
certain of --- 2 reason with --- 2(1)
comment upon/on 5 0(1) recover of/from --- 1
compare to/with 4 1(4) sick of --- 1(3)
compatible with/to --- 3 suffer with/from --- 0(4)
concerned with/in --- 0(2) work on --- 0
conscious to/of 2 1(2) worthy of 3 2(1)
159
This table indicates that Johnson commented on 24 collocations out of 44, supplying 73
citations in all. In the “Preface” and the “Grammar” to his Dictionary, Johnson did not refer
to the collocations in particular. However, this does not mean that Johnson had not paid
much attention to them in compiling his Dictionary. In the Plan, which had been written
before the compilation of the Dictionary, Johnson had stated the following:
The syntax of this language [English] is too inconstant to be reduced to rules, and can be only
learned by the distinct consideration of particular words as they are used by the best authors. Thus,
we say, according to the present modes of speech, the soldier died of wounds, and the sailor
perished with hunger; and every man acquainted with our language would be offended by a change
of these particles, which yet seem originally assigned by chance, there being no reason to be drawn
from grammar or reason why a man may not, with equal propriety, be said to dye with a wound, or
perish of hunger. (Johnson 1747:18)
Then, he had continued as follows:
Our syntax therefore is not to be taught by general rules, but by special precedents [...] it is not our
power to have recourse to any established laws of speech, but we must remark how the writers of
former ages have used the same word, and consider whether he can be acquitted of impropriety
[...]. (Johnson 1747:19)
According to these statements, Johnson had directly related the collocations to the syntax of
the language at the time when he had written the Plan, and he had intended to solve the
relevant problem through historical investigations of the language. The fact that he did not
refer to the collocations in the “Preface” and the “Grammar” in his Dictionary, as well as
supplying a relatively small number of citations for them, suggests the probability that he
abandoned this intention in the end. Otherwise, he may have elaborated some other method
for the treatment of the combinations. This point will be clarified in the following sections.
As for Webster, he did not express his view of the collocations in the “Preface” and the
“Grammar” to his Dictionary similarly to Johnson. However, this does not mean that he
was not interested in them. Table 19 reflects the fact that Webster treated more relevant
collocations than Johnson; he gave comments on 39, 15 more than Johnson. In a sense, it
implies the probability that Webster was more concerned with them than Johnson. As to
citations, Webster supplied merely 31, but supplied 49 invented examples at the same time.
With regard to the selection of the sources for citations, Johnson’s practice is indicated
in the following table.
Table 20: Sources of Citations for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations


Dryden 17 Watts 2 Atterbury 2 Rymer 1
Shakespeare 8 Taylor 2 Whitgift 1 Knolles 1
Bible 7 Prior 2 Wake 1 Herbert 1
Swift 5 Locke 2 Temple 1 Denham 1
160


Pope 3 Hooker 2 Sprat 1 Bentley 1
Milton 3 Clarendon 2 South 1 ----- ---
Addison 3 Bacon 2 Sidney 1 ----- ---
Although Johnson supplied a small number of citations, the table above reveals that he
practised as he did in treating prepositions and prepositional adverbs; his treatment of the
two types of words is reflected in Table 13 in Section 6.1.2 and Table 18 in Section 6.2.2.
That is, he quoted from Dryden more frequently than from any other source.
As to Webster, he selected sources of citations as shown below.

Sources Freq. Sources Freq. Sources Freq.

Bible 13 Watts 1 Broom 1
Dryden 5 Milton 1 Bacon 1
Shakespeare 2 L’Estrange 1 Sources 6
unidenti-
fied
When this table is compared with Table 20, it is revealed that Webster quoted from the
Bible more frequently than Johnson in spite of the fact that the former supplied a smaller
number of citations than the latter. It was clarified in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.1.2 that Webster
supplied a far smaller number of biblical citations than Johnson in entries on words for the
letter L and verbs of high frequency. Contrary to this practice, Webster supplied a larger
number of biblical citations than Johnson in entries on prepositions and prepositional
adverbs, as confirmed in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.2. When these facts are taken into account,
it can be said that Webster’s practice in selecting sources of citations for the treatment of
adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations resembles that for the treatment of
prepositions and prepositional adverbs, which was unusual for him.
7.3 Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Agreement
Table 19 in the previous section indicates that there are 19 verbs and adjectives for which
both Johnson and Webster provided usage notes. In this section, I will adopt a sampling
method and compare the contents of 3 sets of their sub-entries, namely on angry, ashamed
and prefer. In these, Johnson and Webster agreed with each other about the prepositions to
be used with angry, ashamed and prefer. By performing this task, I aim to reveal some
161
aspects of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice in explaining adjective-preposition and verb-

preposition collocations, especially Webster’s use of biblical citations. Besides, the task
will also provide a background for the next step; in Section 7.4, I will analyse sub-entries in
which Johnson and Webster expressed differing opinions.
In one of the sub-entries on angry, Johnson remarked as follows, supplying 3 citations:
J: ANGRY. adj. 2.
It seems properly to require, when the object of anger is mentioned, the particle at before a thing,
and with before a person; but this is not always observed.
Your Coriolanus is not much missed, but with his friends; the commonwealth doth stand, and
so would do, were he angry at it. Shakespeare’s Coriolanus.
Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither:
for God did send me before you to preserve life. Gen. xlv.5.
I think it a vast pleasure, that whenever two people of merit regard one another, so many
scoundrels envy and are angry at them. Swift.
It is seen in this sub-entry that Johnson italicised not only the head-word angry but also its
relevant prepositions. This is his usual practice in treating adjective-preposition and verb-
preposition collocations, and it clearly shows that Johnson was fully aware of the value of
citations to illustrate the usage of the language; it provides counter-evidence to the view
that Johnson mainly supplied citations from a literary viewpoint, which was referred to in
As to Webster, he explained angry with/at as follows:
W: ANGRY, a. 1.
Feeling resentment; provoked; followed generally by with before a person.
God is angry with the wicked every day. Ps. vii.
But it is usually followed by at before a thing.
Wherefore should God be angry at thy voice? Eccles. v.
In this sub-entry, Webster also italicised the prepositions after angry, indicating that angry
with should be used for a person and angry at for a thing, as Johnson had done. In this
respect, Webster may have imitated Johnson’s practice. However, while Johnson quoted
from 3 sources (Shakespeare, the Bible and Swift), Webster exclusively quoted from the
Bible. Additionally, Webster’s citations are short and structurally simple as compared with
Johnson’s.
With regard to the relevant sub-entries on ashamed, Johnson’s contains the following:
J: ASHAMED. adj.
Touched with shame; generally with of before the cause of shame.
Profess publickly the doctrine of Jesus Christ, not being ashamed of the word of
God, or of any practices enjoined by it. Taylor’s Holy Living.
One wou’d have thought she would have stirr’d; but strove
With modesty, and was asham’d to move. Dryd. Fables.
This I have shadowed, that you may not be ashamed of that hero, whose protection you
undertake. Dryd. Conq. of Gr. Ded.
And Webster’s is:

162
W: ASHAMED, a. 1.
Affected by shame; abashed or confused by guilt or a conviction of some criminal action or
indecorous conduct, or by the exposure of some gross errors or misconduct, which the person is
conscious must be wrong, and which tends to impair his honor or reputation. It is followed by of.
Thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed. Ex. xvi.
Israel shall be ashamed of his own counsel. Hosea x.
Here, Webster supplied a citation from the Bible to illustrate the use of ashamed of,
disregarding Johnson’s citations from Jeremy Taylor and Dryden, and Webster’s citation
are shorter and structurally simpler than Johnson’s.
Then, in the entry on prefer, Johnson provided following 3 sub-entries for an illustration
of relevant verb-adjective collocations:
J: To PREFER. v.a. 2, 3 and 4.

2. With above before the thing postponed.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not
Jerusalem above my chief joy. Psalm cxxxvii. 6.
3. With before.
He that cometh after me, is preferred before me; for he was before me. Jo. i. 15.
It may worthily seem unto you a most shameful thing, to have prefered an infamous peace
before a most just war. Knolles.
O, spirit, that dost prefer
Before all temples th’ upright heart. Milton.
4. With to.
Would he rather leave this frantick scene,
And trees and beasts prefer to courts and men. Prior.
In 2 of the 3 sub-entries here, Johnson only indicated prepositions to be put after prefer,
remarking “With before” and “With to” and giving no definitions, though it is clearly seen
that he collected sentences to be quoted under those indications. It seems that such sub-
entries could be unified. Webster attempted this. The following is Webster’s practice:
W: PREFER, v.t. 1.
Literally, to bear or carry in advance, in the mind, affections or choice; hence, to regard more than
another; to honor or esteem above another. It is sometimes followed by above, before, to.
If I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. Ps. cxxxvii.
He that cometh after me, is preferred before me. John i.
Unifying Johnson’s sub-entries in this way, Webster shortened Johnson’s biblical citations
from Ps. and John. Webster’s preference for the brevity of citations is revealed here.
The above 3 sets of sub-entries imply Johnson was highly interested in treating
adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations, providing special sub-entries for
them. They also imply the probability that Johnson had collected phrases and sentences to
be supplied in such sub-entries beforehand. As for Webster, he seems to have tried to
illustrate the use of the collocations by means of biblical phrases and sentences which are
simple and possible in terms of structure. In addition, the sets of sub-entries analysed above
prove that Webster did not necessarily follow Johnson’s practice even when his view of the
collocations was similar.
163
7.4 Comparison of Johnson’s and Webster’s Relevant Sub-entries: Disagreement
Johnson’s and Webster’s opinions differ from each other about which prepositions should
be used for at least 3 adjectives and 3 verbs within the range of collocations indicated in
Table 19 in section 7.2. The adjectives are averse, independent and mad, and the verbs are
believe, comment and invest. In this section, I will analyse six discrepancies between the
lexicographers and their respective use of verbal examples.
(1) averse from vs. averse to

The problem of which preposition should be used for averse caused a heated argument
among grammarians throughout the eighteenth century and at the beginning of the
nineteenth. According to Sterling Leonard (1962:133 and 294), while Johnson and Lowth
claimed that from was appropriate, other grammarians and men of letters, such as George
Campbell, Phillip Withers, Murray and Swift, had the opinion that to should be used;
Leonard further commented that Clarendon’s view of the combination was rather vague.
However, in this respect, the OED may be said to have given a more detailed account than
Leonard. In the entry on averse, the OED reads as follows:
Examination of many instances shows that from has been used by Donne, Speed, R. Burton,
Milton, Bp. Montagu, Sir T. Browne, Evelyn, Hale, Dryden, Pope, Johnson, Southey, Motley,
Lowell, and J. R. Green; to by Heylin, Walton, Boyle, Locke, South, Addison, Steele, De Foe, D.
North, Richardson, H. Walpole, Gibbon, Burke, Buckle, Mill; whilst Sir E. Sandys, Jer. Taylor,
Barrow, Clarendon, Swift, Hume, Macaulay have used both. Shakespeare does not use the word.
The situation has also been referred to by Albert Baugh (2002:281) who ascribed the reason
for the argument to Johnson’s and Lowth’s consciousness of the etymology of averse. In
this regard, the entry on the word in the OED reads that averse from was first used in
English in the translation of the Bible. One of the relevant passages in the AV is the
following:
[...] ye pull off the robe with the garment, fro them that passe by securely, as men auerse from
warre. Micah. ii. 8.
Johnson, trying to prove the legitimacy of averse from, provided 2 sub-entries on averse.
One is for the indication of the ‘correct’ collocation averse from, and the other for the
‘wrong’ combination averse to. The 2 sub-entries entirely concern the usage, and the sense
of averse is not explained at all. The following is the contents of the sub-entries:
J: AVERSE. adj. 3 and 4.

3. It has most properly from before the object of aversion.
Laws politick are never framed as they should be, unless presuming the will of man to be
inwardly obstinate, rebellious, and averse from all obedience unto the sacred laws of his nature.
Hooker, b. i.
They believed all who objected against their undertaking to be averse from peace. Clarendon, b.
viii.
These cares alone her virgin breast employ,
Averse from Venus and the nuptial joy. Pope.
164
4. Very frequently, but improperly, to.

He had, from the beginning of the war, been very averse to any advice of the privy council.
Clarendon, b. viii.
Diodorus tells us of one Charondos, who was averse to all innovation, especially when it was to
proceed from particular persons. Swift on the Dissensions in Athens and Rome.
In these sub-entries, the facts seem to support Leonard’s investigation mentioned above in
which Swift is quoted as indicating the ‘wrong’ combination and Clarendon is quoted in
both sub-entries.
Opposing Johnson’s view as expressed in the sub-entries, Webster tried to prove that
averse to was the correct collocation:
W: AVERSE, a.
This word and its derivatives ought to be followed by to, and never by from. This word includes
the idea of from; but the literal meaning being lost, the affection of the mind signified by the word,
is exerted towards the object of dislike, and like its kindred terms, hatred, dislike, contrary,
repugnant, &c., should be followed by to. Indeed it is absurd to speak of an affection of the mind
exerted from an object. Averse expresses a less degree of opposition in the mind, than detesting
and abhorring.
Webster’s explanation here cannot be regarded as a mere objection derived from his sense
of rivalry with Johnson. That is, Webster, referring to the change in the sense of averse,
claimed that the preposition after the word should be selected on the basis of the sense
accepted widely at his time, not on its historically original sense. The description in the
OED seems to support this claim. That is, the sub-entry ‘averse a. and sb.A.4.b.’ in the
OED states that “The use of the prep. to rather than from after averse and its derivatives”.
Then, referring to Johnson’s view mentioned above, the sub-entry also reads:
[...] although condemned by Johnson as etymologically improper, is justified by the consideration

that these words express a mental relation analogous to that indicated by hostile, contrary,
repugnant, hostility, opposition, dislike, and naturally take the same constitution. Aversion in the
sense of an action, which would be properly followed by from, is now obsolete.
Incidentally, the passage “these words express a mental relation analogous to that indicated
by hostile, contrary, repugnant, hostility, opposition, dislike” in this description has
resemblance to part of Webster’s statement above, which was made more than 60 years
before the first edition of the OED, “This word [averse] [...] like its kindred terms, hatred,
dislike, contrary, repugnant, &c. should be followed by to”.
Johnson’s adherence to the collocation averse from seems to have affected his view of
other collocations. One example is disgust from. He provided the following two sub-entries
on disgust:
J: To DISGUST. v.a. 2 and 3.

2. To strike with dislike; to offend. It is variously constructed with at or with.
If a man were disgusted at marriage, he would never recommend it to his friend. Atterbury.
Those unenlarged souls are disgusted with the wonders which the microscope has discovered.
Watt’s Impr. of the Mind.
165
3. To produce aversion: with from.

What disgusts me from having to do with answer-jobbers is, that they have no conscience. Swift.
Webster approved of the contents of the first sub-entry above, but opposed that of the
second. He stated:
W: DISGUST, v.t. 2.
To displease; to offend the mind or moral taste; with at or with; as, to be disgusted at foppery, or
with vulgar manners. To disgust from is unusual and hardly legitimate.
Johnson’s selection of the preposition from for averse seems to signify that he tended to
think of adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations in terms of the etymologies
of words. Webster seems to have been antithetical to it. As discussed in Section 1.5.4,
Webster spent twenty years studying etymology, but his selection of to for averse may
imply that he attached relatively more importance to the usage of words. In this regard, the
last sentence in the entry on impatient in his Dictionary seems to signify his basic view of
adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations:
W: IMPATIENT, a.
This word is followed by of, at, for, or under. We are impatient of restraint, or of wrongs;
impatient at the delay of expected good; impatient for the return of a friend, or for the arrival of
the mail; impatient under evils of any kind. The proper use of these particles can be learnt only by
practice or observation.
(2) independent on vs. independent of

Concerning the prepositions after independent, Johnson explained as follows, supplying
3 citations:
J: INDEPENDENT. adj. 1.
Not depending; not supported by any other; not relying on another; not controlled.
It is used with on, of, or from before the object; of which on seems most proper, since we say to
depend on, and consequently dependent on.
Creation must needs infer providence, and God’s making the world irrefragably proves that he
governs it too; or that a being of dependent nature remains nevertheless independent upon him in
that respect. South’s Sermons.
Since all princes of independent government are in a state of nature, the world never was
without men in that state. Locke.
The town of St. Gaul is a protestant republick, independent of the abbot, and under the
protection of the cantons. Addis.
The second citation in which any preposition is put after independent seems to have been
supplied to illustrate the sense of the word and only the first and third citations seem to
illustrate the usage of the collocation.
In contrast to Johnson’s view expressed in the sub-entry above, Webster stated the
following:
166
W: INDEPENDENT, a. 8.
Pertaining to an independent or congregational church. It is followed by of or on, both of which are
well authorized. On is most conformable to analogy, for it always follows depend, but of is most
common.
When the opinions of the two lexicographers are compared, it can safely be said that
Johnson attached more importance to analogy, and Webster more usage. The OED seems to
be in favour of Webster’s view again. In the entry ‘independent. a. and sb.’, it reads that of
is the appropriate preposition for independent and that on, upon and from are earlier usages.
(3) mad for vs. mad after

Concerning the prepositions used with mad, Johnson provided the following sub-entry, in
which citations from the Bible, Dryden and Thomas Rymer are supplied:
J: MAD. adj. 2.
Over-run with any violent or unreasonable desire; with on, after, of, perhaps better for, before the
object of desire.
It is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols. Jer. l.38.
The world is running mad after farce, the extremity of bad poetry, or rather the judgment that is
fallen upon dramatick writing. Dryden’s Pref. to Cleomenes.
The people are not so very mad of acorns, but that they could be content to eat the bread of civil
persons. Rymer.
Webster’s counterpart begins as follows:
W: MAD, a. 4.
Inflamed to excess with desire; excited with violent and unreasonable passion or appetite;
infatuated; followed properly by after.
The world is running mad after farce, the extremity of bad poetry. Dryden.
“Mad upon their idols,” would be better rendered, “Mad after their idols.” Jer. l.
Here in this sub-entry, Webster borrowed Johnson’s citation from Dryden which contains
mad after and Johnson seems to have considered relatively inappropriate. Furthermore,
Webster rephrased part of Johnson’s biblical citation so that they might conform to his own
view. This may be regarded as an example which shows that Webster did not always
approve of biblical phrases and sentences.
(4) believe in vs. believe on/upon

Johnson provided the following sub-entries in the entry on believe:
J: To BELIEVE. v.n. 3 and 4.

3. With the particle in ; to hold as an object of faith.
Believe in the Lord your God, so shall you be established. 2 Chron. xx.20.
4. With the particle upon ; to trust; to place full confidence in; to rest upon with faith.
To them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. John,
i. 12.
167
In these sub-entries, Johnson strictly differentiated the use of believe in and that of believe
upon. Webster treated the two collocations in a single sub-entry, and remarked as follows:
W: BELIEVE, v.i.
To have a firm persuasion of any thing. In some cases, to have full persuasion, approaching to
certainty; in others, more doubt is implied. It is often followed by in or on, especially in the
scriptures. To believe in, is to hold as the object of faith.
“Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” John xiv. To believe on, is to trust, to place full
confidence in, to rest upon with faith. “To them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name.” John i. Johnson. But there is no ground for much distinction.
Webster’s description signifies that he thought that the two collocations have the same
sense. At the same time, in respect of the use of citations, it is notable that Webster replaced
Johnson’s from 2 Chron. by one from John. While believe in appears only once in the
former, it appears twice in the latter. Besides, the latter is short and structurally simpler as
compared with the former.
(5) comment upon vs. comment on

Johnson stated the following at the beginning of the entry on comment:
J: To COMMENT. v.n.
To annotate; to write notes upon an author; to expound; to explain; with upon before the thing
explained.
Following these remarks, he supplied 4 citations to illustrate his interpretation: citations

from Shakespeare and Sir William Temple in which comment upon is included, and those
from Herbert and Dryden in which comment on is included.
In response to this practice, Webster stated the following:
W: COMMENT, v.i. 1.
To write notes on the works of an author, with a view to illustrate his meaning, or to explain
particular passages; to explain; to expound; to annotate; followed by on. We say, to comment on an
author or on his writings.
According to the contents of the relevant sub-entry (‘comment sb.2a.A.’) in the OED, either
upon or on can be used with comment, and there is no difference between the sense of
comment upon and that of comment on. However, Webster, who seems to have preferred on
to upon, remarked in his entry on on that “Upon is used in the same sense with on, often
with elegance, and frequently without necessity or advantage”. It was discussed in Section
4.5.6 that Webster modified a biblical phrase “Woe vnto them that ioyne house to house”
and wrote “Woe to them that join house to house”, based on his recognition that unto
“expresses no more than to” and that the same word “is found in writers of former times,
but is entirely obsolete”. The fact that Webster selected comment on rather than comment
upon may be regarded as another piece of evidence that proves his preference for language
as a medium of communication, as discussed in Section 1.5.3.
168
(6) invest in vs. invest with

Johnson treated invest in and invest with in a single sub-entry as shown below:
J: To INVEST. v.a. 1.
To dress; to clothe; to array. When it has two accusatives it has in or with before the thing.
Their gesture sad,
Invest in lank lean cheeks and war-worn coats,
Presented them unto the gazing moon,
So many horrid ghosts. Shakesp. Henry V.
Thou with a mantle didst invest
The rising world of waters. Milton.
Let thy eyes shine forth in their full lustre;
Invest them with thy loveliest smiles, put on
Thy choicest looks. Denham’s Sophy.
In this sub-entry, Johnson did not differentiate invest in and invest with. Webster’s practice
differed from this. He provided a sub-entry for each of the collocations and illustrated their
usage by means of invented examples, as follows:
W: INVEST, v.t. 1 and 7.

1. To clothe; to dress; to put garments on; to array; usually and most correctly followed by with,
before the thing put on; as, to invest one with a mantle or robe. In this sense, it is used chiefly in
poetry and elevated prose, not in colloquial discourse.
7. To clothe money in something permanent or less fleeting; as, to invest money in funded or
bank stock; to invest it in lands or goods. In this application, it is always followed by in.
In these two sub-entries, Webster fairly clearly distinguished between the two combinations.
The OED goes into detail about the prepositions used with invest in its entry:
To clothe, robe, or envelop (a person) in or with a garment or article of clothing; to dress or

adorn.
To cover or surround as with a garment. Const. with.
To clothe or endue with attributes, qualities, or a character. Const. with, also in, into.
To clothe with or in the insignia of an office; hence, with the dignity itself; to install in an office
or rank with the customary rites or ceremonies.
To establish (a person) in the possession of any office, position, property, etc.; to endow or
furnish with power, authority, or privilege. Const. in, with (also †of, into, unto).

To settle, secure, or vest (a right or power) in (a person). Const. in (†with, upon).
This description is partly in line with Webster’s. It may safely be said that Webster excelled
over Johnson in distinguishing between the two collocations.
7.5 Webster’s Interest in Indicating the Collocations
Table 19 in Section 7.2 indicates that Webster disregarded five of Johnson’s treatments of
adjective-preposition and verb-preposition collocations: abstain from, apply to, argue
169
with/against, count upon, object to/against. The reason for this is unknown, but the same
table also indicates the fact that Webster added 20 new descriptions of the collocations:
account for, acquaint of, act upon, agree to/with, aware of, certain of, compatible with/to,
concerned with/in, consist in/of, delighted with, depend from/on/upon, impatient
of/at/for/under, insist on, intent to/on, pleased in/with, reason with, recover of/from, sick of,
suffer with/from, work on. This fact clearly signifies Webster’s strong interest in
prepositional usage. The following are some examples of sub-entries in which his newly-
added descriptions are given:
W: DELIGHTED, pp. 1.
Greatly pleased; rejoiced; followed by with.
That ye may be delighted with the abundance of her glory. Is. lxvi.
W: CONSIST, v.i. 2 and 3.

2. To stand or be; to lie; to be contained; followed by in.
The beauty of epistolary writing consists in ease and freedom.
3. To be composed; followed by of.
A landscape should consist of a variety of scenery.
W: RECOVER, v.i. 1.
To regain health after sickness; to grow well; followed by of or from.
Go, inquire of Balzebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease. 2 Kings i.
These examples also show that Webster utilized biblical passages to illustrate the
collocations genuinely in the light of English usage, irrelevant of his faith.
To illustrate newly added descriptions of the collocations, Webster occasionally made
use of Johnson’s citations. Examples are:
J: SICK. adj. 4.
Disgusted.
He was not so sick of his master as of his work. L’Estrange.
----------
W: SICK, a. 2.
Disgusted; having a strong dislike to; with of, as, to be sick of flattery; to be sick of a country life.
He was not so sick of his master as of his work. L’Estrange.
J: To DEPEND. v.n. 1.
To hang from.
From the frozen beard
Long isicles depend, and crackling sounds are heard. Dryden.
----------
W: DEPEND, v.i. 1.
To hang; to be sustained by being fastened or attached to something above;
followed by from.
From the frozen beard
Long icicles depend. Dryden.
170
7.6 Generalization of the Analysis
Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples supplied for the treatment of adjective-
preposition and verb-preposition collocations reflect their view of prepositions well. In
terms of their sources of citations, Johnson quoted from Dryden most frequently, as he did
in entries on prepositions; such a practice is not seen in entries on words for the letter L and
verbs of high frequency. It may safely be said that this fact ensures the probability that
Johnson regarded Dryden’s prepositional usage as more sophisticated than Shakespeare’s
and that of other men of letters.
As to Webster, he quoted from the Bible more often than Johnson, as he did in entries on
prepositions; he did not do this in entries on words for the letter L and verbs of high
frequency. However, in Webster’s case, it should be noted that he modified a biblical
phrase in treating mad upon/after; such a practice was also seen in Section 4.5.6. Therefore,
he can be regarded as having made use of biblical phrases and sentences which were
familiar to the readers of his Dictionary rather than considering prepositional usage in the
Bible as ideal.
How, then, did Webster’s selection of prepositions differ from Johnson’s? As his
adherence to from for averse shows, Johnson tended to select prepositions based on the
etymologies of relevant words. In contrast to this, Webster, although he had enthusiastically
studied etymology, preferred to select prepositions according to usage. In this respect,
Webster may be said to have been partly in line with Priestley whom I discussed in Section
3.2.2, although Webster did not totally abandon prescriptivism as his treatment of invest
in/with indicates.
From a different viewpoint, it may be said that Johnson and Webster were, respectively,
forerunners of modern lexicographers treating verb-preposition and adjective-preposition
collocations. That is, Stefania Nuccorini (2003:366-387) has analysed eight dictionaries of
English collocations in which the BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations (1997)
and the Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English (2002) are included.
Nuccorini (2003:373) has commented that the former is useful for its usage notes and
illustrative phrases, as well as its information on grammatical collocations in the sense of
both complementation and valency, though it is not corpus-based. As to the latter, she
(2003:378) has said that it is based on a corpus, covering a shortcoming of the former. If
Nuccorini's analyses have been correctly made, such characteristics in the two dictionaries
are also included in Johnson's and Webster's dictionaries, as observed so far.
In addition, Nuccorini (2003:367) has further remarked that “often the dictionary-
intended addresses do not coincide with the actual users and that, on the other hand,
different roles are often performed by the same individual (for example a teacher and an
advanced user, a linguist and a translator) who might adopt different perspectives”,
referring to modern English collocational dictionaries. On the assumption that this opinion
is correct, such a situation is seen as early as in the difference between Johnson and
Webster in their view of some verb-preposition and adjective-preposition collocations.
8: Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment
of Modal Auxiliaries and Primary Verbs
8.1 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries
8.1.1 Overview of Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Modal Auxiliaries
The purpose of this section lies in the analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice of using
verbal examples in their treatment of modal auxiliaries. Both of them frequently referred to
the grammatical categories of mood, tense, number and person, supplying verbal examples,
in treating the words. The modal auxiliaries referred to here are shall, will, should, would,
may, can, might, could and must. These 9 words are usually regarded as function words.
Randolph Quirk et al. (1985:135-140) called them ‘central modals’, and distinguished them
from ‘marginal modals’, dare, need, ought to and used to. The modal auxiliaries
exclusively function as auxiliary verbs without the help of the preposition to, while
‘marginal modals’ often require the preposition and can sometimes be used as principal
verbs. In conjunction with modal auxiliaries, the concept of what is termed ‘modality’ has
to be taken into account. With regard to this term, I will adopt the definition given by Quirk
et al.:
At its most general, modality may be defined as the manner in which the meaning of a clause is
qualified so as to reflect the speaker’s judgment of the likelihood of the proposition it expresses
being true. As with terms like present and past, this semantic definition makes only an imperfect
match with the correspondingly-named formal category, that of modal auxiliary verbs. None the
less, it will serve to indicate in general terms the function which these verbs perform in the
language. (Quirk et al. 1985:219)
Giving this definition, they have pointed out two types of modalities:
(a) Those such as ‘permission’, ‘obligation’, and ‘volition’ which involve some kind of intrinsic
human control over events, and
(b) Those such as ‘possibility’, ‘necessity’, and ‘prediction’, which do not primarily involve
human control of events, but do typically involve human judgment of what is or is not likely to
happen. (Quirk et al. 1985:219)
Both Johnson and Webster treated all modal auxiliaries in their dictionaries. However, there
are problems to be solved before starting the analysis of their treatment of the words. That
is, they did not think of modal auxiliaries as modern grammarians do. In the first place,
they did not necessarily regard the 9 words to be analysed in this section as modal
auxiliaries. Besides, they had different opinions from each other about what parts of speech
the words belonged to. Therefore, it is necessary here to recognize how Johnson and
Webster thought of the words. The table below shows the situation. In this table, the
descriptions in frames are taken from relevant entries in their dictionaries.
172
Table 22: Johnson’s and Webster’s View of Modal Auxiliaries
Entry-words Johnson’s Dictionary Webster’s Dictionary

can v.n. v.i.
could the imperfect preterite of can. The past tense of can, according to
our customary arrangement in
grammar.
may auxiliary verb. verb aux.
might the preterite of may. pret. of may.
must verb imperfect. v.i. It is used as an auxiliary verb.
shall v. defective v.i., verb auxiliary
should v.n. The preterit of shall, but now used
as an auxiliary verb, either in the
past time or conditional present.
will v.a. v.t.
would The preterite of will. pret. of will.
This table indicates that both Johnson and Webster basically regarded can as an intransitive
verb and will as a transitive verb. As to must, shall and should, their views differ from each
other. Additionally, their use of grammatical terms make the problem more complicated.
For instance, Johnson used the term ‘v. defective’ in the entry on shall. Modern
grammarians usually use this term to refer to a type of word which does not have -ing and -
s forms, as Ralph Long (1961:38) has done; among other modern grammarians, Long has
especially detailed the use of defective verbs. As to Johnson’s definition of the term, he
provided the following entry in his Dictionary:
J: DEFECTIVE Verb [in grammar.]

A verb which wants some of its tenses.
This definition seems to be the same as that of modern grammarians’. However, modern
grammarians regard not only shall but also all other modal auxiliaries as defective verbs;
Long (1961:38) has also done this. Johnson did not think in this way. Furthermore, it is
necessary to take into account changes in the language. As mentioned above, Johnson
thought that will was basically a transitive verb; he even added the preposition to to indicate
the entry-word of its relevant entry as ‘To WILL’. This is because will was also used as a
principal verb at Johnson’s time. Johnson provided 5 sub-entries on will, but in only 1 of
the 5 he treated the word as a modal auxiliary. This situation is almost the same in Webster.
Webster provided 7 sub-entries in its corresponding entry, and in only 1 of the 7 he treated
will as a modal auxiliary. Because of this fact, it becomes required to select sub-entries
relevant to the purpose of this section, instead of trying to observe the whole of entries on
relevant words which may cover more than modal auxiliaries.
There is one more problem. When such relevant sub-entries are browsed through, both
Johnson and Webster are seen to have depended quite heavily on invented examples to
illustrate the usage of modal auxiliaries. The degree of their dependence on this type of
example in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries is apparently far higher than that in entries on
prepositions and prepositional adverbs. For this reason, in producing the table of the
frequency of verbal examples within the range of sub-entries on modal auxiliaries in the
173
two dictionaries, it becomes necessary to show the number of invented examples as well as
refer to the number of citations. In the following table, the letters S and C indicate the
number of relevant sub-entries and citations, and figures in parentheses that of invented
examples.
Table 23: Citations and Invented Examples in Sub-entries on Modal Auxiliaries


Entry-words S C S C Entry-words S C S C
can 4 4(5) 10 9(20) shall 7 3(6) 7 2(20)
could 1 2 10 1(16) should 6 7(4) 7 2(12)
may 5 7(1) 4 2(9) will 1 0(5) 1 0(5)
might 1 1 2 0(1) would 8 23(3) 1 0(8)
must 1 5 2 1(4) ----- --- --- --- ---
This table reveals several notable facts. In Johnson’s case, the number of citations supplied
in the sub-entries on shall is smaller than that of the sub-entries. This means that Johnson
did not supply citations in each of the sub-entries, signifying that he did not necessarily
explain the senses and usage of the modal auxiliary with the help of citations. Besides,
Johnson supplied invented examples in the sub-entries on can, may, shall, should, will and
would; especially in the sub-entries on can, shall and will, invented examples outnumber
citations.
Actually, Johnson heavily depended on invented examples rather than citations in
explaining the senses and usage of modal auxiliaries, and did not supply citations in more
than half of the relevant sub-entries. This will be clarified in the following sub-sections, but
it may be beneficial to refer to some widely-accepted opinions on Johnson’s citations
beforehand which will be proved incorrect. For instance, James Murray, with a belief that
Johnson had supplied citations or at least indicated the sources of citations in all entries and
sub-entries in his Dictionary, claimed the following in 1900:
Only where he had no quotations did Johnson insert words from Bailey’s folio, or other source,
with Dict. as the authority. (Murray 1900:39)
As far as sub-entries on modal auxiliaries are concerned, however, Johnson quite often did
not indicate even sources of citations. And Noel Osselton once remarked as follows:
To Dr Johnson remains the glory of having been the first English compiler to have provided
illustrative quotations systematically for all (or at least the vast bulk) of words entered. (Osselton
1995:59)
If quotation or citation means, as Reinhard Hartmann and Gregory James (1998:20)

claimed, “a source of lexicographical data, verified in the form of an extract from a text”, it
will be clearly detected in the following sub-sections that Johnson did not supply
174
“illustrative quotations systematically” in many sub-entries which are vital for the
explanation of the senses and usage of modal auxiliaries.
As for Webster, Table 23 indicates that he supplied 94 invented examples and 17
citations in total in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries. The table also illustrates that Webster
supplied more citations than Johnson in the treatment of can, showing that Webster was not
always less dependent on citations than Johnson. Besides, for the modal auxiliaries can,
could, might and must, Webster provided more sub-entries than Johnson. This implies that
Webster’s treatment of these modal auxiliaries is generally more detailed than Johnson’s.
With regard to the sources of citations in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries, Johnson
quoted 52 phrases and sentences from 19 sources shown in the following table:
Table 24: Sources of Johnson’s Citations in Sub-entries on Modal Auxiliaries

Shakespeare 8 Sidney 3 Swift 1 Grew 1
Dryden 8 Hammond 2 Ray 1 Allestree 1
Bacon 8 Bible 2 Prior 1 Daniel 1
Locke 5 Ben Jonson 2 Milton 1 Bournet 1
Waller 3 Addison 2 L’Estrange 1 ----- ---
Here, Johnson is found to have ranged extensively over the literature for a small number of
citations. As for Webster, he quoted 17 phrases and sentences from 5 sources: 13 from the
Bible, and 1 each from Dryden, a translation of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius for
which the translator is not indicated, Bournet whose first name is indeterminable, and
Addison. It is seen here that Webster borrowed few of Johnson’s citations in treating modal
auxiliaries, very unlike the treatment of other types of words analysed so far in preceding
chapters.

on the Modal Auxiliaries Shall and Will
As revealed in the analysis in the previous sub-section, both Johnson and Webster have in
common that they frequently supplied invented examples in sub-entries on modal
auxiliaries. However, they are observed to have handled the words in various ways;
respective sub-entries reflect the lexicographers’ unique view of the usage of relevant
words. This means that the usual practices in their ways of supplying verbal examples in
the sub-entries can only be determined with some difficulty. For this reason, I will hereafter
provide 4 sub-sections to proceed with the analyses, taking account of the modalities of
each modal auxiliary. Specifically, I will analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of
shall and will in this sub-section, that of should and would in Section 8.1.3, that of may, can,
might and could in Section 8.1.4, and that of must in Section 8.1.5.
175
In general, Johnson treated modal auxiliaries quite differently from verbs of high
frequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. That is, in addition to depending little on
citations in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries, Johnson occasionally provided detailed
introductory remarks in them, which are rarely seen in entries on other types of words in his
Dictionary. This can be said especially about the entry on shall. In the introductory remarks
in the entry, Johnson referred to the tense which shall denotes, quoting a sentence from
Chaucer, and mentioned the difference between the word and should as follows:
In Chaucer, the faithe I shall to God, means the faith I owe to God : thence it became a sign of the
future tense. The French use devoir, dois, doit, in the same manner, with a kind of future
signification; and the Swedes have skall, and the Islanders skal, in the same sense. It has no tenses
but shall future, and should imperfect.
Following such words, Johnson provided 7 sub-entries which are all related to shall as a
modal auxiliary. In 5 sub-entries out of the 7, Johnson illustrated the usage of the word with
invented examples without supplying a citation at all:
J: SHALL. v. defective. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

1. I SHALL love. It will so happen that I must love; I am resolved to love.
2. SHALL I love? Will it be permitted me to love? Will you permit me to love? Will it happen
that I must love?
3. Thou SHALT love. I command thee to love; it is permitted thee to love: [in poetry or solemn
diction] it will happen that thou must love.
4. SHALT thou love? Will it happen that thou must love? Will it be permitted to thee to love?
6. SHALL he love? Is it permitted him to love? In solemn language, Will it happen that he must
love?
In the seventh sub-entry, Johnson commented on person and number relevant to the word.
He did not exemplify the comment even with an invented example:
J: SHALL. v. defective. 7.
The plural persons follow the signification of the singulars.
The fifth sub-entry is an exceptional case. Only in this sub-entry, he illustrated the usage of
the word by citations:
J: SHALL. v. defective. 5.
He SHALL love. It will happen that he must love; it is commanded him that he love.
It is a mind, that shall remain a poison where it is.
-- Shall remain!
Hear you this triton of the minnows? Mark you
His absolute shall ? Shakesp. Coriolanus.
See Romulus the great:
This prince a priestess of your blood shall bear,
And like his sire in arms he shall appear. Dryden’s AEn.
That he shall receive no benefit from Christ, is the affirmation whereon all his despair is
founded; and the one way of removing this dismal apprehension, is to convince him that Christ’s
176
death, and the benefits thereof, either do, or, if he perform the condition required of him, shall
certainly belong to him. Hammond’s Fundamentals.
Johnson must have been careful in selecting these citations. This is clear from the fact that
the entry-word shall is included in almost all clauses of the citations. Besides, two of the
three citations are from poetry. In the introductory remarks on the entry for the word, where
he mentioned a difference between shall and should as referred to earlier in this sub-section,
Johnson also commented as follows, praying for the success of his explanation of the usage
of shall among poets:
The explanation of shall, which foreigners and provincials confound with will, is not easy; and the
difficulty is increased by the poets, who sometimes give to shall an emphatical sense of will ; but I
shall endeavour, crassa Minervâ, to show the meaning of shall in the future tense.
The two citations from poetry in the fifth sub-entry are thought to reflect Johnson’s
consciousness as revealed in the comments. Incidentally, the comments indicate that
Johnson assumed that foreigners would also use his Dictionary.
As for Webster, he treated shall quite differently from Johnson in the entry on the word.
In the introductory remarks there, which Webster also provided, he expressed the following
opinion about the orthography of shall:
It ought to be written shal, as the original has one l only, and it has one only in shalt and should.
This opinion will be hardly acceptable to modern grammarians. However, the contents of
sub-entries which follow the opinion is important to know Webster’s view of the word. In 4
out of 7 sub-entries which he provided, Webster stated the following, supplying invented
examples for each:
W: SHALL, v.i., verb auxiliary. 1-4.

1. Thus in the first person, shall simply foretells or declares what will take place; as, I or we
shall ride to town on Monday. This declaration simply informs another of a fact that is to take
place.
2. In the second and third persons, shall implies a promise, command or determination. “You
shall receive your wages,” “he shall receive his wages,” imply that you or he ought to receive
them; but usage gives to these phrases the force of a promise in the person uttering them.
3. Shall I go, shall he go, interrogatively asks for permission or direction. But shall you go, asks
for information of another’s intention.
4. But after another verb, shall, in the third person, simply foretells. He says that he shall leave
town to-morrow. So also in the second person; you say that you shall ride to-morrow.
The words in the first and second sub-entries above are parts of fairly long descriptions,
respectively; the first sub-entry originally consists of 29 lines and the second 13 lines. The
contents of these 4 sub-entries clearly shows that Webster focused on the usage and
modalities of shall. In this respect, Webster treated the word almost the same as Johnson
did. However, it can also be said that Webster’s account of the word is more detailed than
Johnson’s.
177
The significance of Webster’s treatment of shall lies not only in the length of his
explanation. Webster referred to the use of shall in the subjunctive mood, which was
different from Johnson’s practice. In the fifth sub-entry on shall, Webster stated:
W: SHALL, v.i., verb auxiliary. 5.

After if, and some verbs which express condition or supposition, shall, in all the persons,
simply foretells; as, If I shall say, or we shall say, / Thou shalt say, ye or you shall say, / He shall
say, they shall say.
This sub-entry also shows that he was conscious of person in the use of shall, and he
illustrated his view of the usage of shall by means of invented examples.
Furthermore, the entry on shall in Webster’s Dictionary reveals his aspect as an
etymologist. At the beginning of the first sub-entry in the entry, Webster quoted 2 sentences
from Old English literature, which are not seen in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s
Dictionary, to show the original use of the word:
W: SHALL, v.i., verb auxiliary. 1.

Shall is primarily in the present tense, and in our mother tongue was followed by a verb in the
infinitive, like other verbs. “Ic sceal fram the beon gefullod.” I have need to be baptized of thee.
Matt. iii. “Ic nu sceal singan sar-cwidas.” I must now sing mournful songs. Boethius.
However, Webster was not a person clinging to the archaic usage of the word. Following
the remarks above, he stated:
We still use shall and should before another verb in the infinitive, without the sign to; but the
signification of shall is considerably deflected from its primitive sense. It is now treated as a mere
auxiliary to other verbs, serving to form some of the tenses.
Then, he provided 60 lines of comments on the senses and usage of shall at his time. It can
safely be said that Webster as an etymologist and Webster as a descriptive grammarian is
integrated here in Webster as a lexicographer.
With regard to the entry on will, out of 5 sub-entries Johnson provided there, only one
concerns the word as a modal auxiliary. The following is its contents:
J: To WILL. v.a. 5.
It is one of the signs of the future tense; of which it is difficult to show or limit the signification.
I will come. I am determined to come; importing choice.
Thou wilt come. It must be so that thou must come; importing necessity.
Wilt thou come? Hast thou determined to come? importing choice.
He will come. He is resolved to come; or it must be that he must come, importing either choice
or necessity.
It will come. It must so be that it must come; importing necessity.
The plural follows the analogy of the singular.
Johnson here referred to person in the use of the word, and did not supply a single citation,
depending entirely on invented examples. In other words, supplying invented examples
which begin with thou, he and it, he explained what will signified in each of them.
178
As to Webster, he provided only one sub-entry to explain the senses and usage of the
word as a modal auxiliary, as well. This may give the impression that Webster followed
Johnson’s practice in treating the modal auxiliary. However, the fact is that Webster
uniquely exercised his ingenuity in the sub-entry, and even commented on the modality of
the word which Johnson did not refer to. The following is the contents of the sub-entry in
Webster’s Dictionary:
W: WILL, v.t. 7.
Will is used as an auxiliary verb, and a sign of the future tense. It has different significations in
different persons.
1. I will go, is a present promise to go; and with an emphasis on will, it expresses determination.
2. Thou wilt go, you will go, express foretelling; simply stating an event that is to come.
3. He will go, is also a foretelling. The use of will in the plural, is the same. We will, promises;
ye will, they will, foretell.
In terms of verbal examples, Webster made use of invented examples and did not supply a
citation there. And he was also conscious of person relevant to the use of the word. These
are almost exactly the same as Johnson’s case. At the same time, however, Webster divided
the sub-entry for the convenience of reference for the readers of his Dictionary. Besides,
Webster mentioned the modality of simple future, as well as that of volitional future, using
the word ‘foretelling’ and supplying invented examples for the purpose. By contrast,
Johnson only referred to the modality of volitional future; to be concrete, he only indicated
that will denoted choice and necessity.
The modal auxiliaries shall and will basically function to express simple future and
volitional future. In the sub-entries on shall, Johnson referred to the two types of future, but
in the sub-entry on will, he only mentioned volitional future. Differently from this practice,
Webster detailed the two types of future in the sub-entries relevant to shall and will. This
indicates that Webster’s explanation of the usage of the two modal auxiliaries is more
elaborate than Johnson’s. This can be confirmed by another fact in relevant sub-entries.
That is, Webster indicated the historical change in the use of shall. Additionally, Webster
also mentioned the use of shall in the subjunctive mood, which Johnson did not. Certainly,
Johnson cared about person in relation to the usage of shall and will, supplying invented
examples rather than depending on citations. In spite of such efforts, however, his
grammatical consciousness hardly matched up to Webster’s, as far as the two words are
concerned.

on the Modal Auxiliaries Should and Would
As analysed in Section 8.1.1, Johnson indicated that should was an intransitive verb, but he
was also fully aware of the word as a modal auxiliary. He treated the functions of the word
as a modal auxiliary in 6 out of 8 sub-entries. The following are contents of 5 sub-entries
out of the 6:
179
J: SHOULD. v.n. 1-5.

1. This is a kind of auxiliary verb used in the conjunctive mood, of which the signification is
not easily fixed.
2. I SHOULD go. It is my business or duty to go.
3. If I SHOULD go. If it happens that I go.
4. Thou SHOULD’ST go. Thou oughtest to go.
5. If thou SHOULD’ST go. If it happens that thou goest.
It can be seen here that Johnson commented on the use of should for the expression of the
subjunctive mood, or the ‘conjunctive mood’ in his term, and that he illustrated the
comments with invented examples, not citations. In the sixth sub-entry, he mentioned the
use of the word in relation to the category of grammatical number:
J: SHOULD. v.n. 6.
The same significations are found in all the other persons singular and plural.
Then, in this sixth sub-entry, Johnson supplied the following 5 citations:
Let not a desperate action more engage you

Than safety should. Ben. Johnson’s Catiline.
Some praises come of good wishes and respects, when by telling men what they are, they
represent to them what they should be. Bacon.
To do thee honour I will shed their blood,
Which the just laws, if I were faultless, should. Waller.
So subjects love just kings, or so they should. Dryden.
I conclude, that things are not as they should be. Swift.
It is evident that Johnson supplied these 5 citations to illustrate his comments on person and
number. That is, the subjects of should in the citations can be divided into 3 types: first
person singular, third person singular and third person plural. It is obvious here that
Johnson tried to show that the modality of should does not vary according to person and
number of its subjects.
As to Webster, he provided introductory remarks in the entry on should, which Johnson
had not done in its corresponding entry:
W: SHOULD, The preterit of shall.

“He should have paid the debt at the time the note became due.” Should here denotes past time.
“I should ride to town this day if the weather would permit.” Here should expresses present or
future time conditionally. In the second and third persons, it denotes obligation or duty, as in the
first example above.
This statement shows that Webster paid attention to tense and person in relation to the use
of should. This can also be confirmed in the following sub-entries on the word:
W: SHOULD, The preterit of shall. 1-5.

1. I should go. When should in this person is uttered without emphasis, it declares simply that
an event would take place, on some condition or under other circumstances. But when expressed
with emphasis, should in this person denotes obligation, duty or determination.
180
2. Thou shouldst/You should go. Without emphasis, should, in the second person, is nearly
equivalent to ought; you ought to go, it is your duty, you are bound to go. [See Shall.] With
emphasis, should expresses determination in the speaker conditionally to compel the person to act.
“If I had the care of you, you should go, whether willing or not.”
3. He should go. Should, in the third person, has the same force as in the second.
4. If I should, if you should, if he should, &c. denote a future contingent event.
5. After should, the principal verb is sometimes omitted, without obscuring the sense.
So subjects love just kings, or so they should. Dryden.
That is, so they should love them.
At the same time, Webster’s use of the citation from Dryden in the fifth sub-entry here, to
which he added his own paraphrase, is also significant. This citation was copied from the
entry on should in Johnson’s Dictionary. As already revealed in this sub-section, Johnson
supplied the citation to show the usage of the word in relation to number. Webster made
use of it to illustrate his explanation of the case where the principal verb is omitted after
should. This also indicates Webster’s interest in elliptical expressions, which I discussed in
Webster further treated the use of should for the denotation of ‘actual existence’; this use
of should had not been mentioned by Johnson. In the seventh sub-entry on the word,
Webster stated the following:
W: SHOULD, The preterit of shall. 7.

“We think it strange that stones should fall from the aerial regions.” In this use should implies
that stones do fall. In all similar phrases, should implies the actual existence of the fact, without a
condition or supposition.
This use of should has occasionally interested modern grammarians. Otto Jespersen
(1933:287) called it the ‘emotional should’’ and Quirk et al. (1985:234-235) and R. Close
(1981:120) the ‘putative should’. Quirk et al. (1985:234) have claimed that “In using
should, the speaker entertains, as it were, some ‘putative’ world, recognizing that it may
well exist or come into existence”. Though brief and limited, Webster’s description of the
use of the word is clear, and he also supplied verbal examples there.
In addition to the points revealed above, it is also to be noted that Webster did not treat
should only in its own entry. In the entry on shall, he provided 2 sub-entries for the
explanation of should as a modal auxiliary:
W: SHALL, v.i. 6.
Should, in the first person, implies a conditional event. “I should have written a letter yesterday,
had I not been interrupted.” Or it expresses obligation, and that in all the persons. I should,/ Thou
shouldst,/ He should,/ You should, have paid the bill on demand; it was my duty, your duty, his
duty to pay the bill on demand, but it was not paid.
W: SHALL, v.i. 7.
Should, though properly the past tense of shall, is often used to express a contingent future
event; as, if it should rain to-morrow; if you should go to London next week; if he should arrive
within a month. In like manner after though, grant, admit, allow.
181
Here, Webster referred to the use of should as a sign of ‘conditional events’ and that of
‘contingent future’, illustrating the use with invented examples. Johnson did not treat such
use of should anywhere in entries on should and shall. Moreover, Webster detailed the use
of should in relation to person in the 2 sub-entries there. Certainly, Johnson diligently tried
to clarify the usage of should, but Webster by far surpassed him in this respect.
With regard to would, Johnson’s treatment of the word is fairly elaborate as compared
with that of should. In the first sub-entry on the word, Johnson commented on mood,
person and number. Besides, he supplied invented examples, as well as citations, to
illustrate the comments; he supplied 3 invented examples and 2 citations in total. The
following is his comment on mood which the word denotes; he supplied one citation with
it:
J: WOULD. The preterite ofwill. 1.

It is generally used as an auxiliary verb with an infinitive, to which it gives the force of the
subjunctive mood.
If God’s providence did not so order it, cheats would daily be committed, which would justle
private men out of their rights, and unhinge states. Ray.
The second sub-entry on the word concerns person; he supplied three invented examples
here, paraphrasing each of them:
J: WOULD. The preterite of will. 2.

I WOULD do it. My resolution is that it should be done by me.
Thou WOU’LDEST do it. Such must be the consequence to thee.
He WOULD or it would. This must be the consequence to him or it.
In the third sub-entry, Johnson referred to number; he supplied one citation there as
follows:

The plural as the singular.
He by the rules of this own mind, could construe no other end of mens doings but self-seeking,
suddenly feared what they could do, and as suddenly suspected what they would do, and as
suddenly hated them, as having both might and mind so to do. Sidney.
Webster, by contrast, did not divide the entry on would into sub-entries. However, his
account of the word is never less detailed than Johnson’s. Additionally, Webster’s
recognition and treatment of the modal auxiliary were essentially different from Johnson’s.
Webster began his explanation of would as follows:
W: WOULD, pret. of will.

Would is used as an auxiliary verb in conditional forms of speech. “I would go, if I could.” This
form of expression denotes will or resolution, under a conditional or supposition. You would go,/
He would go, denote simply an event, under a condition or supposition.
182
Here, Webster supplied the if-clause in one of his 3 invented examples. With this practice,
he indicated the use of would as a sign of volitional future. The second and third examples
are related to the word as indicating simple future. Then, he continued to say that:
The condition implied in would is not always expressed. “By pleasure and pain, I would be
understood to mean what delights or molests us - ”; that is, if it should be asked what I mean by
pleasure and pain, I would thus explain what I wish to have understood. In this form of expression,
which is very common, there seems to be an implied allusion to an inquiry, or to the supposition of
something not expressed.
The core of this passage lies in the citation “By pleasure and pain [...] what delights or
molests us -”. Actually, it is evident that Webster borrowed this citation from Johnson. In
the fourth sub-entry on would in his Dictionary, Johnson had supplied the following
citation from John Locke to illustrate the definition “Was or am resolved; wish or wished
to”:
By pleasure and pain I would be understood to signify, whatsoever delights or molests us, whether
from the thoughts of our minds, or any thing operating on our bodies. Locke.
Very clearly, Webster used the citation to make the use of would explicit; this is something
which Johnson only vaguely referred to. The relevant passage above shows that Webster
also added his own paraphrase to the citation.
Even when Webster did not provide a usage note, there are cases where the difference
between Webster’s view of the modal auxiliary and Johnson’s are revealed by verbal
examples. For instance, Johnson provided a sub-entry on would to show the ‘wrong’ use of
the word. At the beginning of this sub-entry, Johnson stated the following, supplying some
invented examples:

It has the signification of I wish, or I pray; this, I believe, is improper; and formed by a gradual
corruption of the phrase, would God; which originally imported, that God would, might God will,
might God decree ; from this phrase ill understood came, would to God ; thence, I would to God:
and thence I would, or elliptically, would come to signify, I wish: and so it is used even in good
authours, but ought not to be imitated.
This sub-entry suggests that Johnson thought that it was wrong to use would as a substitute
for the principal verb wish. Under this statement, he supplied 9 citations in total to show
how would had been used ‘incorrectly’: 2 each from Shakespeare and Dryden, and 1 each
from Bacon, Ben Jonson, Samuel Daniel, Milton and Allestree. For instance, citations from
Milton and Allestree are as follows:
Would thou hadst hearken’d to my words, and stay’d

With me, as I besought thee, when that strange
Defuse of wand’ring, this unhappy morn,
Possess’d thee. Milton’s Paradise Lost.
Would God we might prevent the need of such unkindly expedients, and by a thankful sense of
what we have, provide to conserve it. Decay of Piety.
183
We may note, in passing, that it was unusual for Johnson to criticize Allestree’s phrases and
sentences from his Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety (1667). He quoted 19 times from
this source within the range of entries on words for the letter L (see Section 4.1.1) and 2
times in entries on verbs of high frequency (see Section 5.1.2), but never did he censure
phrases and sentences from this source. This is probably because Johnson approved of the
contents of the work. His critical attitude about the sentence in the entry on would was
manifestly caused by his view of the language. It can be said, therefore, that Johnson
carefully selected the sources of citations in sub-entries on would as a modal auxiliary.
Concerning the use of would as a substitute for wish, which Johnson criticized here,
Webster also referred to it, copying one of Johnson’s invented examples. Differently from
Johnson, however, Webster was not critical of the use. He seems to have regarded the use
as acceptable. Webster simply stated:
W: WOULD, pret. of will.

Would has the sense of wish or pray, particularly in the phrases, “would to God,” “would God we
had died in Egypt,” “I would that ye knew what conflict I have;” that is, I could wish such a thing,
if the wish could avail. Here also there is an implied condition.
Would is used also for wish to do, or to have. What wouldst thou? what would he?
The modal auxiliaries should and would are not merely preterites of shall and will. They
also denote unique senses and modalities which are different from those of will and shall.
Both Johnson and Webster were well aware of this, and they elaborately treated the words
should and would based on their grammatical knowledge. Johnson diligently supplied
invented examples and occasionally paraphrased them to indicate the usage of the words.
This is an unusual practice for him. He did this especially to show the subjunctive-mood
which the two words denote. He also supplied invented examples to illustrate his comments
on person and number in relation to the usage of the words. In spite of such efforts,
however, he was no match for Webster. Webster not only covered the contents of the whole
of Johnson’s explanation about should and would, but also expounded on various usage of
the words which Johnson did not refer to. Especially in sub-entries on should, Webster
mentioned the use of the word which Quirk et al. termed the ‘putative should’. Webster
supplied invented examples to illustrate the use, as he often did in explaining other uses of
should and would.

on the Modal Auxiliaries May, Can, Might and Could
In this sub-section, I will mainly analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s view of may and can and
their ways of supplying verbal examples in relevant sub-entries. Concerning their treatment
of might and could, I will discuss it after this task.
With regard to may, Johnson divided the entry on the word into 5 sub-entries. Quite
differently from the case of shall, will, should and would, he almost exclusively treated the
senses, not the usage, of may. Johnson provided few usage notes and few invented
examples in the sub-entries on may. Instead, he supplied 1 or 2 citations in each of the 5
sub-entries.
184
Strangely, Webster also treated may like Johnson did. Revealing his talent as a
grammarian in sub-entries on other modal auxiliaries, as analysed in preceding sub-sections,
Webster seldom commented on the usage of may in relevant sub-entries. In this situation,
the only exceptional example is the fourth sub-entry on the word. Webster referred to the
optative subjunctive there as follows:
W: MAY, verb aux. 4.

It is used in prayer and petitions to express desire. O may we never experience the evils we dread.
So also in expressions of good will. May you live happily, and be a blessing to your country. It
was formerly used for can, and its radical sense is the same.
It is seen in this sub-entry that Webster supplied an invented example “May you live
happily”. Johnson had supplied the following citation in the fifth sub-entry on may in his
Dictionary:
J: MAY. auxiliary verb. 5.

A word expressing desire.
May you live happily and long for the service of your country. Dryden’s Dedicat. to the AEneis.
This citation from Dryden includes the phrase “May you live happily”. There is no knowing
whether Webster referred to this citation or not when he mentioned the optative subjunctive.
However, it can at least be said from a grammatical viewpoint that Webster slightly
excelled Johnson by supplying the phrase in relation to mood.
In contrast to the case of may, Johnson entered into the details of the usage of can. At the
beginning of the entry on the word, Johnson made the following introductory remarks:
J: CAN. v.n. [Introductory Remarks]

It is sometimes, though rarely, used alone; but is in constant use as an expression of the potential
mood; as, I can do, thou canst do, I could do, thou couldest do. It has no other terminations.
Then, he divided the entry into 4 sub-entries. The first sub-entry of these concerns the sense
of the word, in which can is defined as “To be able; to have power”. However, in the
second sub-entry, Johnson referred to the mood it denotes:
J: CAN. v.n. 2.
It expresses the potential mood; as, I can do it.
If she can make me blest? She only can:
Empire, and wealth, and all she brings beside,
Are but the train and trappings of her love. Dryden.
In addition to an invented example, Johnson here supplied a citation in which 2 examples of

relevant usage are documented. In the third sub-entry on can, Johnson indicated a
difference between can and may in terms of mood, supplying only invented examples:
J: CAN. v.n. 3.
It is distinguished from may, as power from permission; I can do it; it is in my power: I may do it;
it is allowed me: but, in poetry, they are confounded.
185
This sub-entry may give a reason why Johnson’s explanation of the usage of may was
rather superficial. That is, there is a probability that he tried to compare the usage of may
and can in the entry on can. The fourth sub-entry on can supports this probability. Johnson
explained the types of principal verbs to be used with can and may here:
J: CAN. v.n. 4.
Can is used of the person with the verb active, where may is used; of the thing, with the verb
passive; as, I can do it; it may be done.
Here again, Johnson exclusively supplied invented examples, not depending on a single
citation.
Compared with Johnson’s practice, Webster seems to have paid little attention to the
usage of can. He provided a brief usage note of the word at the beginning of its relevant
entry. The contents seems to be applicable to all modal auxiliaries. He said:
W: CAN, v.i.
Can in English is treated as an auxiliary verb, the sign of the infinitive being omitted, as in the
phrases, I can go, instead of, I can to go; thou canst go; he can go.
He did not provide any other usage notes in the entry on the word. The reason is unclear
why Webster provided a usage notes whose contents seems to be applicable to other modal
auxiliaries here. However, it seems clear that Webster did not detail the usage of can
anyway. As to verbal examples, he supplied 2 citations in its ninth sub-entry, which
genuinely concern the senses, not the usage, of the word:
W: CAN, v.i. 9.
To have strength of inclination or motives sufficient to overcome obstacles, impediments,
inconvenience or other objection.
I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. Luke xiv.
I cannot rise and give thee – yet because of his importunity, he will rise and give him. Luke xi.
As to might and could, these modal auxiliaries seem to have been nothing but the preterites
of may and can for Johnson. He only stated the following in the entry on could:
J: COULD. [the imperfect preterite of can. See CAN.]

Was able to; had power to.
He did not supply any verbal examples in this entry, and did not divide it into sub-entries.
In the entry on might, he supplied a citation, but he did not even give a definition; he
merely indicated that might is the preterite of may.
As for Webster, he also regarded the two modal auxiliaries could and might as mere
preterites of can and may, respectively. In the introductory remarks in the entry on could,
he stated that could “in reality a distinct word, can having no past tense”, but in the same
remarks, he strangely said, “In the past tense, could signifies, was able, had power”.
Therefore, Webster’s remarks here do not seem to be coherent. He provided 10 sub-entries
on the word, and all of them concern could as nothing other than the genuine preterite of
can; it seems that Webster did not find any specific usage of the word which can does not
186
have. This can also be said about might; he did not refer to any special senses and usage of
might which may does not have.
The usage of the auxiliaries may and can are similar to but not identical with each other.
Quirk et al., for instance, referred to the difference in terms of two modalities, the
possibility and permission. Concerning the former, they (1985:223) claimed that “the most
common meaning of may [= possibility] is different from the possibility sense of can” and
that “To paraphrase may, we use it is possible by a that-clause, rather than an infinitive
clause”. As to the latter, they (1985:223) stated that “may is more formal and less common
than can” and that “may is particularly associated with permission given by the speaker”,
differently from can. As to Johnson, he was more conscious of the difference between may
and can than Webster. Though not discussing the usage of may in detail in the entry on the
word, he tried to expound the differences between may and can in the entry on can. He
supplied invented examples, not citations, for the purpose. Webster did not detail the usage
of the two modal auxiliaries as Johnson. In this sense, Johnson was unusually superior to
Webster as far as the treatment of the two modal auxiliaries is concerned. As to their
treatment of might and could, little difference can be observed between the two
lexicographers; both Johnson and Webster did not expound on the usage specific to the
words.

on the Modal Auxiliary Must
In treating the auxiliary must, Johnson did not divide the entry on the word into sub-entries.
However, in this entry, Johnson was conscious of the usage of the word. Specifically,
Johnson provided the following usage note there:
J: MUST. verb imperfect.

To be obliged. It is only used before a verb. Must is of all persons and tenses, and used of persons
and things.
This note shows that Johnson was conscious of person and tense in relation to the modal
auxiliary. Under this usage note, Johnson supplied following 5 citations:
Do you confess the bond?

- I do.
- Then must the Jew be merciful.
- On what compulsion must I? tell me that. Shakespeare.
Must I needs bring thy son unto the land from whence thou camest? Gen. xxiv. 5.
Fade, flowers, fade, nature will have it so;
‘Tis but what we must our Autumn do. Waller.
Because the same self-existent being necessarily is what he is, ‘tis evident that what he may be,
or hath the power of being, he must be. Grew.
Every father and brother of the convent has a voice in the election, which must be confirmed by
the pope. Addison.
187
These citations include various types of persons, illustrating Johnson’s comments quoted
above. In the citation from Shakespeare, must is used with third person singular; in that
from Waller with first person plural; in that from Grew with third person singular; and in
that from Addison with which, a relative pronoun denoting ‘Every father and brother of the
convent’.
Webster had the same opinion about person and tense in relation to the use of the word.
In the introductory remarks in the entry on must, Webster stated that “It is used as an
auxiliary verb, and has no variation to express person, time or number”. However, his
explanation of the usage of the word is more detailed than Johnson’s. That is, Webster
pointed out 2 modalities which must denotes, supplying invented examples. In the first sub-
entry on the word, Webster remarked as follows:
W: MUST, v.i. 1.
It expresses both physical and moral necessity. A man must eat for nourishment, and he must sleep
for refreshment. We must submit to the laws or be exposed to punishment. A bill in a legislative
body must have three readings before it can pass to be enacted.
In the second sub-entry, he stated, supplying citations this time:
W: MUST, v.i. 2.
It expresses moral fitness or propriety, as necessary or essential to the character or end proposed.
“Deacons must be grave;” “a bishop must have a good report of them that are without.” 1 Tim. iii.
In this way, both Johnson and Webster were interested in indicating person and tense to be
noted concerning the word. Johnson supplied citations selected for the purpose. As for
Webster, he also indicated the modalities of must and supplied invented examples, as well
as citations, in accordance with the indication.
Both Johnson and Webster treated modal auxiliaries in various ways, and the usual
practices in their treatment of the words can hardly be summarized. However, it can at least
be said that they were strongly conscious of grammatical categories in the treatment of the
words. They were especially so in treating will, shall, would and should. As to the use of
verbal examples, Johnson supplied few citations in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries, and
made full use of invented examples there, instead. Johnson could have supplied numerous
citations from English literature in sub-entries on modal auxiliaries as he did in entries on
verbs of high frequency, but he did not practice in this way. In this respect, James Murray’s
and Noel Osselton’s perspective which was referred to in Section 8.1.1 does not apply to
sub-entries on modal auxiliaries in Johnson’s Dictionary. Certainly, he occasionally
supplied citations, but in most cases this was done based on his own view of the usage of
modal auxiliaries, and he did not deduce the usage of the words from the citations. As for
Webster, he was especially dependent on invented examples. As confirmed at the beginning
of this section, Section 8.1.1, modal auxiliaries are function words which denote moods.
For the treatment of the words, Johnson was essentially a grammarian, paying attention to
tense, mood and person quite frequently, and was not a man of letters except for a few rare
188
cases. As for Webster, he especially made use of his knowledge as a grammarian; he

usually referred to tense, mood and person in more detail than Johnson.
8.2 Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment of Primary Verbs
8.2.1 The Characteristics of Primary Verbs and the Procedure of the Analysis
There are verbs which function both as principal verbs and as auxiliaries. They are be, do
and have which modern grammarians call primary verbs. Concerning the semantic
characteristics of these verbs as auxiliaries, Randolph Quirk et al. have given the following
definition, which I will accept in this section:
Semantically, the primary verbs as auxiliaries share an association with the basic grammatical verb
categories of tense, aspect, and voice. In this they are broadly distinguished from the modal verbs,
which are associated mainly with the expression of modal meanings such as possibility, obligation,
and volition. (Quirk et al. 1985:129)
Specifically, as auxiliaries, be helps to build the progressive form and the passive voice,
have the perfect tense, and do the negative and interrogative sentences, as well as functions
as a sign of emphasis. In addition to such varied characteristics, their inflections are closely
associated with number and person of their subjects. Both Johnson and Webster treated
such words in their dictionaries. In the preceding section, it was revealed that they supplied
verbal examples to illustrate the usage of modal auxiliaries, using grammatical terms. The
primary verb is also a type of word which often requires the use of grammatical terms in its
treatment. Therefore, it is expected that the analysis of their treatment of primary verbs
further shows how the lexicographers supplied verbal examples, paying attention to
grammatical categories.
Concerning the table of the number of sub-entries and verbal examples, as well as that of
the sources of citations, I will not provide them in this section. Because of the intricate
characteristics of primary verbs mentioned above, it would be difficult to show the general
tendencies in Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the words by means of such tables.
With this in mind, I will first analyse how Johnson and Webster treated primary verbs in
entries on the infinitives of the words in their dictionaries. In this task, I will exclusively
deal with their treatment of primary verbs as auxiliaries. The reason for this is that the
analysis of their treatment of principal verbs has already been made in Section 5.1 where I
investigated how Johnson and Webster treated verbs of high frequency. Then, after dealing
with entries on the infinitives of primary verbs in this way, I will move on to the analysis of
Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of their inflected forms.
189
8.2.2 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries on Primary Verbs
In this sub-section, I will analyse how Johnson and Webster supplied verbal examples to
illustrate the usage of be, do and have as auxiliaries in this order. As to be as an auxiliary,
they supplied verbal examples in the following way, providing 1 sub-entry, respectively:
J: To BE. v.n. 2.
It is the auxiliary verb by which the verb passive is formed.
The wine of life is drawn, and the meer lees
Is left this vault to brag of. Shakesp. Macbeth.
W: BE, v.i.
This verb is used as an auxiliary in forming the tenses of other verbs, and particularly in giving to
them the passive form; as, he has been disturbed.
In this way, Johnson illustrated the role of be in the formation of the simple present passive
voice. In the citation which he supplied is appears twice, supporting his explanation well. In
contrast to this practice, Webster supplied an invented example which indicates the use of
be in the present perfect passive voice, implying the possibility that the formation of the
passive voice with the use of be is applicable in tenses other than the simple present. As to
be for the formation of the progressive form, neither Johnson nor Webster referred to it.
Concerning do, I will firstly analyse Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of the word as a
sign of emphasis, and later its function in the formation of the negative and interrogative
sentences. With regard to do as a sign of emphasis, Johnson gave a detailed account of it.
He provided 4 sub-entries for the purpose, supplying 1 or 2 invented examples in each;
additionally, he also supplied 6 citations in total in these sub-entries. The contents of the
sub-entries are:
J: To DO. v.i. 7-10.

7. Do is a word of vehement command, or earnest request; as, help me, do; make haste, do.
If thou hast lost thy land, do not also lose thy constancy; and if thou must die a little sooner, yet
do not die impatiently. Taylor’s Rule of living holy.
I am ensnared;
Heaven’s birdlime wraps me round, and glues my wings:
---Loose me. ---I will free thee.
---Do, and I’ll be thy slave. Dryden’s King Arthur.
8. To Do is put before verbs sometimes expletively; as, I do love, or, I love; I did
love, or, I loved.
The Turks do acknowledge God the father, creator of heaven and earth, being the first person in
the Trinity, though they deny the rest. Bacon’s Holy War.
This just reproach their virtue does excite;
They stand, they join, they thicken to the fight. Dryd. AEn.
Expletives their feeble aid do join. Pope.
9. Sometimes emphatically; as, I do hate him, but will not wrong him.
But I do love thee; and when I love thee not,
Chaos is come again. Shakespeare’s Othello.
10. Sometimes by way of opposition; as, I did love him, but scorn him now.
190
Thus, Johnson divided do as a sign of emphasis into 4 types: do in the vehement command
or earnest request; do before the verb as the expletive; do for simple emphasis; and do as a
sign of opposition. These types were apparently deduced from his extensive reading of
English literature; he illustrated 3 types out of the 4 by means of citations. At the same time,
however, it is notable that he supplied at least 1 invented example to illustrate each of the 4
types. This indicates that Johnson had his unique view of do as a sign of emphasis. When
this taken into account, it can safely be said that he supplied citations which accorded with
his criteria. In Webster’s case, he also expounded do as a sign of emphasis as shown below.
In this excerpt, the numbers in square brackets are not in the original; they are put there for
the convenience of the present analysis:
W: DO, v.i.
[1] Do is also used in the imperative, to express an urgent request or command; as, do come;
help me, do; make haste, do. In this case, do is uttered with emphasis.
[2] Do is also used to express emphasis. She is coquetish, but still I do love her.
[3] Do is sometimes a mere expletive.
This just reproach their virtue does excite. Dryden.
Expletives their feeble aid do join. Pope.
[The latter use of do is nearly obsolete.]
[4] Do is sometimes used by way of opposition; as, I did love him, but he has lost my affections.
Here, Webster’s indication is largely derived from Johnson’s view of do as a sign of

emphasis; [1] corresponds to do in the vehement command or earnest request, [2] do for
simple emphasis, [3] do before the verb as the expletive, and [4] do as a sign of opposition.
He also borrowed citations from Dryden and Pope in [3] from the corresponding entry in
Johnson’s Dictionary, and most of Webster’s invented examples are identical with
Johnson’s. However, it is not that Webster added nothing to Johnson’s view. Differently
from Johnson, Webster indicated that do used in the imperative should be uttered with
special stress in [1].
Quite differently from the case of do as a sign of emphasis, Johnson did not refer to do
for the formation of the negative and interrogative sentences in relevant entries ‘To DO.
v.a..’ and ‘To DO. v.i.’. Johnson supplied 45 citations in these entries except for those
which were supplied for the explanation of do as a sign of emphasis. However, in the 45
citations, neither a negative sentence with do+not nor an interrogative sentence beginning
with do is included. The following passage in the “Grammar” attached to his Dictionary
clearly shows that Johnson was fully aware of the importance of do in the formation of the
negative and interrogative sentences; in verbal examples in his “Grammar”, Johnson wrote
words to be noted in roman:
It [do] is frequently joined with negative; as I like her, but I do not love her, I wished him success,
but did not help him.
The imperative prohibitory is seldom applied in the second person, at least in prose, without the
word do; as, Stop him, but do not hurt him; Praise beauty, but do not dote on it.
Its chief use is in interrogative forms of speech, in which it is used through all the
persons; as, Do I live? Dost thou strike me? Do they rebel? Did I complain? Didst thou
love her? Did she die? So likewise in negative interrogations; Do I not yet grieve? Did
she not die? (Johnson 1755: n. pag. [8th in the “Grammar”])
191
It is not clear why Johnson did not refer to do for the formation of the negative and
interrogative sentences in the 2 entries on do. As for Webster, he indicated the use of do for
the formation of interrogative sentences in a relevant entry as follows:
W: DO, v.i.
As an auxiliary, do is used in asking questions. Do you intend to go? Does he wish me to come?
The invented examples in this sub-entry clearly indicate that Webster was conscious of
person and number relevant to the use of do. As to the role of do in the formation of
negative sentences, Webster did not treat it in the entry on do.
Concerning have, Johnson mentioned its functions as an auxiliary in terms of the
formation of the present perfect and pluperfect forms, or the ‘preterperfect’ and
‘preterpluperfect’ forms in his terms, in one of the sub-entries on have (v.a.). He supplied
10 citations in the sub-entry, and it is almost certain that he carefully selected them so that
they may fully support his explanation on perfect forms. That is, there are some cases
where one citation includes 2 or 3 perfect forms. Besides, it is also noticeable that 9
citations out of the 10 reproduced here are taken from Addison, which implies the
possibility that Johnson highly estimated Addison’s perfect forms. The contents of the
relevant sub-entry is as shown below:
J: To HAVE. v.a. 20.

It is most used in English, as in other European languages, as an auxiliary verb to make the tenses.
Have the preterperfect, and had the preterpluperfect.
If there had been words enow between them to have expressed provocation, they had gone
together by the ears. Cong.
I have heard one of the greatest genius’s this age has produced, who had been trained up in all
the polite studies of antiquity, assure me, upon his being obliged to search into records, that he at
last took an incredible pleasure in it. Addison.
I have not here considered custom as it makes things easy, but as it renders them delightful; and
though others have made the same reflections, it is impossible they may not have drawn those uses
from it. Addison.
[7 out of 9 citations from Addison are omitted here. K.M.]
Webster’s treatment of have as an auxiliary is rather different from Johnson’s. He gave a

brief explanation of it in a relevant entry, instructing the readers to refer to the “Grammar”
attached to his Dictionary for details. However, he did not forget to indicate the way of
formulating perfect forms with the use of have. In addition to this task, Webster also gave
information on the relation between the inflected forms of have and person and number in
conjunction with perfect forms; he further supplied invented examples for the purpose. In
this practice, Webster’s is rather brief, but it may be said that he did more than what
Johnson had done in a relatively long sub-entry. The relevant part in Webster’s Dictionary
is as follows:
192
W: HAVE, v.t.
[...] its uses as an auxiliary verb [...] are fully explained in grammars. As an auxiliary, it assists in
forming the perfect tense, as I have formed, thou hast formed, he hath or has formed, we have
formed, and the prior-past tense, as I had seen, thou hadst seen, he had seen.
8.2.3 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Entries

on the Inflected Forms of Primary Verbs
All primary verbs are inflected irregularly. In this respect, most auxiliaries and some
principal verbs share this feature with primary verbs. However, the inflected forms of
primary verbs are usually more closely related to person and number of their subjects than
in the case of those of auxiliaries and principal verbs. For this reason, it is thought that the
analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s practice in the treatment of the inflected forms of
primary verbs will clearly reveal how they supplied verbal examples, paying attention to
grammatical categories. In this sub-section, I will focus on Johnson’s and Webster’s
treatment of the inflected forms of be, the primary verb which is inflected most irregularly.
Both Johnson and Webster provided entries on am, are, been, being, is, was, were and
wert. However, in the entries on being, Johnson said that its entry word is a noun, and
Webster did little more than indicate that the word is the present participle of be. For this
reason, I will analyse how Johnson and Webster dealt with am, are, been, is, was, were and
wert in the respective relevant entries.
The following are the contents of the entries on am in the two dictionaries:
J: AM. The first person of the verb to be. [See To BE.]

And God said unto Moses, I am that I am: and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of
Israel, I am hath sent me unto you. Exodus, iii. 14.
Come then, my soul: I call thee by that name,
Thou busy thing, from whence I know I am:
For knowing what I am, I know thou art;
Since that must needs exist, which can impart. Prior.
W: AM, the first person of the verb to be, in the indicative mode, present tense. Sax. eom [...] Goth,
im; Pers. am.
I AM that I AM. Ex. iii.
While Johnson here indicated nothing more than that am is the first person inflection of be,
Webster explained the mood and tense the word denotes. Incidentally, Webster also
provided etymological information for am; he also provided such information in other
entries on the inflected forms of be. Since the inflected forms of be are derived from the
words whose etymologies are different from each other, it may have been natural for
Webster, who was keenly interested in etymology, to do this. However, since such
etymological information has little relevance to the purpose of this section, I will delete it
from Webster’s entries hereafter. In supplying verbal examples, Johnson was more
considerate of the dictionary reader than Webster. In the first citation am appears three
times, and in the second, its usage can be compared with that of art for second person
singular. Webster’s citation seems rather brief; if his dictionary readers did not have
193
sufficient knowledge of the Bible, this citation would have been almost meaningless. It may
be that Webster excessively expected the reader’s knowledge of the Bible here.
For the treatment of are, Johnson supplied 2 invented examples and one citation in the
relevant entry, and Webster supplied 3 invented examples, together with a usage notes, as
follows:
J: ARE.
The third person plural of the present tense of the verb to be; as, young men are rash, old are
cautious.
Gamut I am, the ground of all accord,
Are to plead Hortensio’s passion;
B mi Bianca take him for thy lord,
C faut, that loves with all affection. Shakesp. Tam. Shrew.
W: ARE.
The plural of the substantive verb [...]. [Etymological comments have been deleted. K.M.] We
are; ye or you are; they are; past tense plural were. It is usually pronounced àr.
In these entries, Webster’s brief invented examples tell more about the usage of are than
Johnson’s long citation; they include information on whichever person is relevant.
There is almost nothing to be commented on Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of been.
The following are the whole of the contents of relevant entries:
J: BEEN. The participle preterite of To BE; which see.
W: BEEN, Part. perf. of be; pronounced bin. [Etymological comments have been deleted here.
K.M.]
It may be that they treated been in this way because the word is used regardless of person
and number of its subjects.
In the entries on is, both Johnson and Webster indicated person and number associated
with is. Johnson supplied 1 invented example and 3 citations in one of 2 sub-entries on the
word. In the citations, there are 6 examples of the use of is, whose subjects are varied. The
contents of the sub-entry is as follows:
J: IS. 1.
The third person singular of to be: I am, thou art, he is.
He that is of God, heareth God’s words. Jo. viii. 47.
Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do evil; neither is it in them to do good. Jer. x. 5.
My thought, whose murther yet is but fantastical,
Shakes so my single state of man, that function
Is smother’d in surmise; and nothing is,
But what is not. Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
Especially in the third citation here, is appears 3 times, which implies Johnson’s careful
selection of citations in the sub-entry. In another sub-entry, Johnson indicated that is can be
abbreviated to ’s, which does not concern the analysis in this section. Webster’s treatment
of is is as shown below. He referred to mood and tense in addition to person and number:
194
W: IS, v.i.
The third person singular of the substantive verb [...]. [Etymological comments have been deleted
here. K.M.] In the indicative, present tense, it is thus varied; I am, thou art, he, she, or it, is; we, ye
or you, they, are.
In treating was and were, the preterites of be, Johnson supplied citations to show how the
words are used, but he did not make any comments in relevant entries. Besides, in each of
the citations, the relevant words appear only once:
J: WAS. The preterite of To BE.

Enoch walked with God, and was not; for God took him. Gen. v. 24.
J: WERE. of the verb to be.

To give our sister to one uncircumcised, were a reproach unto us. Gen. xxxiv. 14.
In infusions in things that are of too high a spirit, you were better pour off the first infusion, and
use the latter. Bacon.
Henry divided, as it were,
The person of himself into four parts. Daniel’s Civil War.
As though there were any feriation in nature, or justitium’s imaginable in professions, this
season is termed the physicians vacation. Brown’s Vulgar Errours.
He had been well assur’d that art
And conduct were of war the better part. Dryden.
Johnson seems to have been unenthusiastic about treating was and were, as no grammatical
information is included in relevant entries. Webster, by contrast, gave a detailed account of
the words:
W: WAS, s as z.
[...] the past tense of the substantive verb[...] [Etymological comments have been deleted here.
K.M.]. [...] Eng. is, in the present tense, and was in the past; as, I was; he was.
W: WERE,
This is used as the imperfect tense plural of be; we were, you were, they were; and in some other
tenses. [Etymological comments have been deleted here. K.M.] It is united with be, to supply its
want of tenses, as went is with go.
Here, Webster indicated that were is used when its subjects are first person plural, second
person and third person plural with examples. Additionally, he referred to the cases where
were is used in imperfect tense and where it is unified with be. He illustrated such
explanation with invented examples.
As to wert, the obsolete inflected form of be, Johnson supplied 3 citations to illustrate its
usage, stating that the word is the preterite of be, as follows:
J: WERT. the second person singular of the preterite of to be.

Thou wert heard. B. Johnson.
O that thou wert as my brother. Cant. viii. 1.
All join’d, and thou of many wert but one. Dryden.
195
Webster stated the following regarding the word as the subjunctive imperfect tense of be:
W: WERT
[...] the second person singular of the subjunctive imperfect tense of be.
It is probably because the use of this word had become rather rare in Webster’s time that he
supplied neither a citation nor an invented example.
Incidentally, there is an episode about Johnson’s recognition of wert. In the “Grammar”
attached to his Dictionary, Johnson (1755: n. pag. [7th]) referred to the mood associated
with the word, saying that “Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be
used in the indicative”. According to Sterling Leonard (1962:200-209), the term
‘conjunctive mood’ which Johnson used here puzzled many grammarians at Johnson’s time,
because most of them had been accustomed to use ‘subjunctive mood’ until Johnson’s
Dictionary was published. As for Johnson, he (1755: n. pag. [6th-8th in the “Grammar”])
admitted 4 moods in the language: the indicative, imperative, conjunctive and infinitive.
The subjunctive mood was not included in the 4 moods. In his “Grammar”, Johnson even
claimed that:
The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded, or rather the
conjunctive is wholly neglected, when some convenience of verification does not invite its revival.
It is used among the purer writers after if, though, ere, before, whether, except, unless, whatsoever,
whomsoever, and words of wishing; as, Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be
ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not. (1755: n. pag. [8th in the “Grammar”])
However, in the fourth edition of his Dictionary, Johnson used the term ‘subjunctive’ as
follows in the entry on wert, supplying the same citations as those in the first edition:
J: WERT. the second person singular of the subjunctive imperfect of To be.

Thou wert heard. Ben. Johnson.
This may imply that Johnson’s view of the relevant technical terms changed after he
published the first edition of the Dictionary.
Both Johnson and Webster did not treat every function of primary verbs like the case of
modal auxiliaries. For instance, they did not treat the role of be in the formation of the
progressive form, while its use in the formation of the passive voice is covered by both
Johnson and Webster, as is the role of have in the formation of the perfect tense. As to do as
a sign of emphasis, both gave a detailed account. In general, Webster’s treatment of
primary verbs as auxiliaries is more detailed than Johnson’s. While Johnson commented on
be for the formation of the passive voice in the simple present tense, Webster further
referred to it in the present perfect tense. Besides, Webster indicated the use of do for the
formation of the negative sentence in a relevant entry, which Johnson did not do in its
196
corresponding entry in his Dictionary. Furthermore, there are occasions when Webster’s
brief invented examples provide more information on the functions of primary verbs as
auxiliaries than Johnson’s long citations. In treating inflected forms of primary verbs,
Johnson and Webster were very attentive to relevant person and number, and sometimes to
mood. This is reflected in entries on the inflected forms of be in their dictionaries.
In his practice of supplying verbal examples, Johnson was more dependent on citations
in treating primary verbs than in the case of modal auxiliaries. However, he supplied
invented examples in most entries on primary verbs, which he rarely practiced in entries on
verbs of high frequency where he attached importance to the explanation of the senses of
the words rather than their usage. This illustrates that he was attentive to grammatical
categories which primary verbs concern, though less so than to those which modal
auxiliaries do. In Webster’s case, he supplied invented examples almost continuously as
seen in other types of entries, valuing their brevity; this indicates that Webster was
consistently concerned about the usage of words.
9: Conclusion
9.1 Outline
In writing the conclusion, I will summarize the mass of data which I have assembled in
Chapters 1 to 8 from a systematic viewpoint, rather than enumerate the major points in each
chapter in sequence. Otherwise, various types of facts which have been revealed so far
would not be integrated, and remain isolated from each other. Based on this recognition, I
will first discuss the process of my analyses in Section 9.2, the main part of this chapter.
The primary purpose of this section is to reveal Johnson’s and Webster’s intentions behind
supplying verbal examples. The section will be comprised of 6 parts: discoveries in the
preliminary survey; reflections on the main types of analyses; facts and questions about
Johnson’s practices in supplying citations; those about Webster’s; ways of answering such
questions; and a summary of the lexicographers’ practices in supplying verbal examples. I
will focus my attention on revealing general tendencies, citing few specific examples of
their citations and invented examples.
After discussing the ‘process of the analyses’, I will summarise aspects of Webster’s
uniqueness as compared with Johnson’s in Section 9.3. In a sense, the style of Section 9.2
will accept the suggestion of the saying “we cannot see the forest for the trees”. However, it
is also true that ‘seeing the trees’ is helpful for a better understanding of ‘the forest’. That is,
in Section 9.3, I will enumerate conspicuous facts other than those discussed in Section 9.2.
Section 9.3 will consist of 7 parts: the historical background of Johnson’s and Webster’s
dictionaries; Webster’s modifications of the structure of entries in Johnson’s Dictionary;
differences between Johnson’s and Webster’s views on usage; the modernity of Webster’s
view of usage; Webster’s development of Johnson’s treatment of words and phrases;
Webster’s use of Johnson’s citations; and Webster’s invented examples.
In addition to the above, it should be pointed out that the remainder of this chapter will
provide abundant cross-references to relevant sections (this is because I also intend to make
this chapter a type of subject index). And, unlike the case of other chapters, I will indicate
each section to be referred to in parentheses.
9.2 Reflections on the Process of the Analyses
9.2.1 Discoveries in the Preliminary Survey
At the beginning of the thesis (Section 1.1), I described the background to the project,
including the three reasons why the results of the preliminary survey seemed rewarding. At
the start of this chapter, I want to enumerate the major facts against prevailing perspectives
which have been revealed by my analyses in the main body of the thesis, Chapters 4 to 8. I
will perform this by listing 6 sets of ‘myths and realities’, three each for Johnson’s and
Webster’s dictionaries. The list will be helpful in order to appreciate the focal points in the
198
main body of the thesis, which I will confirm in the following sections (Sections 9.2.2 to
9.2.6).
(1) With regard to Johnson’s Dictionary, it has widely been believed that most of his
citations were taken from literary works published between Sidney’s (b.1554-d.1586) time
and the 1650’s, works which Johnson called “the wells of English undefiled” (1755: n. pag.
[7th (par. 61) in the “Preface”]) (Section 4.1). This is far from true. Rather than those works,
Johnson generally preferred to supply citations from works after the 1650’s (Sections 4.1.1
and 4.1.2).
(2) There is a prevailing assumption that Johnson supplied citations in all entries and
sub-entries in his Dictionary (Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.6). This does not accord with the facts,
either. For the treatment of some types of words, especially of modal auxiliaries, Johnson
most often used invented examples rather than citations (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5).
(3) Furthermore, there is a myth that Johnson supplied biblical citations throughout the
whole range of his Dictionary as a reflection of his strong faith (Section 4.5.1). The fact is
that he hardly quoted from the Bible in entries on function words (Sections 6.1.2 to 6.2.2
and 8.1.1).
(4) As to Webster’s verbal examples, one prevailing but false opinion is that he regarded
such examples in the dictionary as almost useless (Section 4.3.1). Certainly, he generally
used citations far less frequently than Johnson (Section 4.3.2), but he supplied an
abundance of invented examples, instead (Section 4.4). Besides, he seems to have carefully
selected phrases and sentences to be quoted in his Dictionary (Section 4.3.2), making full
use of them to provide instructions on the usage of words (Sections 4.3.2, 6.1.5, 6.2.4, etc).
(5) It has also been claimed by many authorities that Webster supplied far more biblical
citations than Johnson (Section 4.5.2). As a matter of fact, the number of biblical citations
in his Dictionary is generally far smaller than that in Johnson’s (Sections 4.1.1, 4.3.2 and
4.5.2). However, in almost all entries and sub-entries which I analysed, he seems to have
carefully selected biblical phrases and sentences to be quoted so that they might be helpful
to illustrate the usage of words (Sections 4.5, 5.1.3, 6.1.4, etc.). In addition, it was quite
usual for him to shorten such phrases and sentences when they were borrowed from
Johnson’s Dictionary (Sections 4.5.6, 5.1.3, 6.1.5, etc.), sometimes eliminating the middle
of them (Section 4.5.6), and not to hesitate from time to time to change their wording when
they were directly taken from the AV, the original source (Sections 4.5.6 and 7.4); this
practice seems to have been almost entirely intended for the effective instruction on the
usage of words, showing that his biblical citations had had little relevance to his faith
(Sections 3.3.5, 4.5.6, 4.5.7, etc.).
It may be necessary to confirm here that I have differentiated frequency and absolute
numbers of Johnson’s and Webster’s biblical citations. That is, Webster quoted from the
Bible more frequently than any other source in his Dictionary, but the number of his
biblical citations is far smaller than Johnson’s. This also concerns my discussion in this
section later (Sections 9.2.4 to 9.2.6). In this regard, in criticising Joseph Reed’s (1962:104)
remarks that “Johnson had quoted liberally from the Bible, but apparently not nearly often
enough to please Webster” (Section 4.5.2), I referred to Reed’s misleading claim that
Webster’s biblical citations outnumber Johnson’s there, which will be clear from the
context of its relevant section.
(6) And quite a few authorities have strongly claimed that Webster frequently supplied
citations from American authors (Section 4.3.3). The reality is that Webster hardly used
199
such authors (Sections 4.3.2 to 4.3.3, 5.1.2, etc.); he quoted from British authors, especially
those between the beginning of the Restoration and Johnson’s time, far more often than
from American authors (Sections 4.3.2 to 4.3.3, 5.1.2, etc.).
In this way, the survey revealed facts which correct prevailing perspectives. Therefore, it
confirmed my hypothesis that the detailed analyses of Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal
examples in accordance with these facts would open new horizons in the historical study of
English lexicography. It was especially exciting for me to realize that Webster’s Dictionary
could be regarded essentially as a highly sophisticated dictionary of the language at his time
rather than as an encyclopaedic dictionary; as far as I could judge, few authorities had
referred to this point.
9.2.2 Reflections on the Main Types of Analysis
With such expectations such as those mentioned at the end of the preceding section in mind,
I began to produce statistical tables to clarify the two lexicographers’ tendencies in the
practice of supplying verbal examples. For the purpose of producing the tables, I mainly
classified their citations in respective types of entries and sub-entries according to the
sources. However, it was also important to take account of their invented examples in the
tabulation, since it was clear to me that such examples occasionally played a more
important role for both Johnson and Webster than citations, especially in their treatment of
modal auxiliaries and primary verbs as discussed in Chapter 8. As a consequence, I
produced 24 tables in total, which are scattered over Chapters 4 to 8. Referring to the tables
produced in this way, I was not only able to confirm the correctness of the results of the
preliminary survey statistically, but also to find a considerable number of other respective
facts.
In the following two sections, I will summarize the tendencies in Johnson’s and
Webster’s practices in supplying verbal examples as revealed in the major analyses,
providing tables for the discussion of their citations. And I will cite the problems to be
solved which were brought about by the revelation of the facts. I will describe such points
about Johnson’s (Section 9.2.3) and about Webster’s (Section 9.2.4) later. In this
connection, reference to the sets of ‘myths and realities’ I listed in the previous section will
be helpful for a better understanding of the facts mentioned previously (Section 9.2.1).
Apart from those within the range of entries on words beginning with the letter L, all
types of entry-words in Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries which I have analysed share
the characteristic that no English-speaking person can spend a day without using them, and
that they have a wide range of senses and functions. In spite of such analogies, Johnson and
Webster did not necessarily supply verbal examples evenly in their respective entries, in
terms of quantity. Besides, their selection of sources of citations often differed according to
the type of entry-word.
9.2.3 Facts and Questions about Johnson’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples
The following table outlines Johnson’s practice in supplying citations in terms of 5 types of
entries out of 8 on which I expounded in Chapters 4 to 8; since his way of providing entries
200
and sub-entries on modal auxiliaries is quite different from that on other types of words
(Section 8.1.1), I regard the number of relevant words as entries. This table reflects the
situation of the top ten most frequently quoted sources in respective types of entries.
Integers in parentheses indicate the number of citations (and decimal fractions the
percentage) which shows the proportion of respective citations in respective types of entries.
Table 25: Johnson’s Practice in Supplying Citations by Types of Entries
Words for the Verbs of High Prepositions Prepositional Modal

Range of Letter Frequency (618 citations / Adverbs Auxiliaries
L (1,496 citations / 19 entries) (136 citations / (52 citations /
(4,047 citations / 28 entries) 12 entries) 9 words)
1,310 entries)
Shake- 15.8 Bible 16.6 Dryden 18.4 Dryden 17.6 Shake- 15.4
speare (249) (114) (24) speare
(640) (8)
Dryden 11.8 Dryden 12.2 Shake- 14.4 Shake- 15.4 Dryden 15.4
(480) (183) speare speare (8)
(89) (21)
Bible 6.7 Shake- 11.0 Locke 6.3 Locke 7.4 Bacon 15.4
(270) speare (39) (10) (8)
(165)
Milton 4.1 Locke 6.8 Bacon 5.7 Bacon 6.6 Locke 9.6
(165) (101) (35) (9) (5)
Bacon 4.0 Addison 6.3 Addison 5.2 South 3.7 Waller 5.8
(163) (94) (32) (5) (3)
Addison 4.0 Bacon 5.5 Swift 4.2 Milton 3.7 Sidney 5.8
(161) (83) (26) (5) (3)
Pope 3.9 Milton 3.3 Tillot- 3.6 Bible 2.9 Ham- 3.8
(156) (49) son (4) mond
(22) (2)
Locke 3.3 Swift 3.0 Pope 3.4 Watts 2.2 Bible 3.8
(133) (45) (21) (3) (2)
Spenser 3.2 Pope 2.7 Milton 2.6 Sidney 2.2 Ben 3.8
(130) (40) (16) (3) Jonson
(2)
Swift 2.8 Knolles 1.9 Boyle 2.3 Pope 2.2 Addison 3.8
(114) (29) (14) (3) (2)
In terms of the quantity of citations, the situation in entries on words for the letter L in this
table indicates that Johnson supplied 3.1 citations on average per entry, which can be
regarded as Johnson’s usual practice; I have investigated the range of the L’s, where various
types of entry-words are mixed, to grasp his general inclinations in supplying and using
verbal examples (Section 5.1.1 to 5.1.4). By contrast, he supplied 53.4 citations per entry in
entries on verbs of high frequency, and 32.5 in those on prepositions; i.e. 17.2 times more
citations than usual in entries on verbs of high frequency, and 10.5 times more citations in
those on prepositions. As to entries on prepositional adverbs, he supplied 11.3 times more
201
citations there than usual, and 1.9 times more than usual for the treatment of modal
auxiliaries. In all these four types of entries, Johnson quoted phrases and sentences more
frequently than usual, but the frequencies in the respective types of entries differ widely
from one another, except for those in entries on prepositions and prepositional adverbs.
From the viewpoint of the selection of sources, most of the top ten are works by authors
from the period after the Restoration. In addition to this point, Johnson’s practice in
supplying citations from the Bible is also noteworthy; he frequently quoted from the Bible
in entries on verbs of high frequency. While biblical citations in the L’s account for 6.7% of
all citations there, those in entries on verbs of high frequency amount to 16.6%. In contrast,
the citations in entries on the other three types of entries are surprisingly small in number.
Especially in entries on prepositions, the Bible is not included in the top ten most frequently
quoted sources. Actually, my analysis revealed that biblical citations there account for less
than 1.0%, specifically 0.97%, of the total number of citations (Section 6.1.2); only 6 out of
618 citations are taken from the Bible in entries on prepositions. Instead, Johnson quoted
from Dryden exceedingly frequently in the entries, citations from this source accounting for
18.4% of all citations; within the range of four types of entries, Johnson did not quote from
any other source as frequently as this. The situation in entries on prepositional adverbs is
similar; citations from Dryden there account for 17.6% of the total.
With regard to invented examples, Johnson seldom used them in entries on verbs of high
frequency, prepositions and prepositional adverbs. However, he supplied 24 invented
examples for the treatment of 9 modal auxiliaries, or 2.7 on average for one modal auxiliary.
In some sub-entries on this type of word, Johnson exclusively used invented examples
without quoting a single phrase and sentence.
Concerning the topics discussed above, I had to find answers to the following five
questions:
(1) Why did Johnson supply a large number of citations in entries on verbs of high
frequency, quoting frequently from the Bible?
(2) Why did he supply citations less often in entries on prepositions, prepositional
adverbs and modal auxiliaries than in entries on verbs of high frequency?
(3) Why did he supply an extremely small number of citations for the treatment of
modal auxiliaries and often used invented examples instead?
(4) Why did he not quote often from authors between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s in
general, in spite of his own statements in the “Preface” to the Dictionary?
(5) Why did he quote exceedingly frequently from Dryden in entries on prepositions
and prepositional adverbs, and hardly ever from the Bible?
9.2.4 Facts and Questions about Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples
In contrast to Johnson’s, Webster made use of citations as illustrated in the table below.
The meaning of each type of figure in the table is as described at the beginning of the
previous section.
202
Table 26: Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples by Types of Entries
Words for the Verbs of High Prepositions Prepositional Modal

Range of Letter Frequency (94 citations / 19 Adverbs Auxiliaries
L (224 citations / entries) (10 citations / 9 (17 citations /
(632 citations / 28 entries) entries) 9 words)
2,024 entries)
Bible 28.8 Bible 32.6 Bible 45.7 Bible 60.0 Bible 76.5
(182) (73) (43) (6) (13)
Dryden 11.6 Dryden 9.4 Dryden 11.7 Shake- 10.0 Dryden 7.7
(73) (21) (11) speare (1)
(1)
Shake- 7.9 Shake- 7.6 Shake- 6.4 Sander- 10.0 Boethi- 7.7
speare speare speare son us
(50) (17) (6) (1) (trans.)
(1)
Pope 7.3 Bacon 5.8 Bacon 4.3 Prior 10.0 Bournet 7.7
(46) (13) (4) (1) (1)
Milton 4.9 Addison 5.4 Tillot- 2.1 Dryden 10.0 Addison 7.7
(31) (12) son (1) (1)
(2)
Addi- 3.3 Pope 4.9 Pope 2.1 ----- --- ----- ---
son (11) (2)
(21)
Locke 1.9 Locke 3.1 Ben 2.1 ----- --- ----- ---
(12) (7) Jonson
(2)
Swift 1.6 Swift 2.2 Addison 2.1 ----- --- ----- ---
(10) (5) (2)
Bacon 1.6 Wood- 1.3 Waller 1.1 ----- --- ----- ---
(10) ward (1)
(3)
Spenser 1.4 Tillot- 1.3 Temple 1.1 ----- --- ----- ---
(9) son (1)
(3)
Webster supplied 632 citations within the range of 2,024 entries on words for the letter L,
i.e. 0.3 citations on average per entry; I have regarded this as Webster’s usual practice. This
signifies that the number of Webster’s citations per entry is usually approximately one tenth
of that of Johnson’s. However, like Johnson, Webster did not supply citations evenly in the
four other types of entries. He supplied 8.0 citations on average per entry in entries on verbs
of high frequency and 4.9 in those on prepositions. This means that Webster supplied 26
times more citations than usual for the treatment of verbs of high frequency and 16 times
more citations for that of prepositions. In treating prepositional adverbs, he used 1.1
citations per entry, or 3.7 times more citations than usual, in their relevant entries. As to the
treatment of modal auxiliaries, he supplied 6.3 times more citations than usual.
With regard to the sources of citations, there are two points to be noted. The one is that
almost all sources Webster quoted from are works of British authors between the beginning
203
of the Restoration and Johnson’s own time, which is similar to Johnson’s practice. The
other is Webster’s use of biblical citations. The number of biblical citations in Webster’s
Dictionary is generally far smaller than that in Johnson’s (Section 4.5.2). That is, within the
range of entries on words beginning with the letter L, Johnson supplied 270 biblical
citations in 1,310 entries, but Webster only used 182 such citations in 2,024 entries; this
means an average for Johnson of 0.2 biblical citations per entry and for Webster less than
0.1, specifically 0.09. At the same time, however, Webster always quoted from the Bible
more frequently than from any other source. Especially in entries on prepositions,
prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries, he used more Bible quotes than in entries on
words for the letter L and verbs of high frequency, which is in stark contrast to Johnson. As
confirmed in the previous section, Johnson hardly used biblical citations in entries on
prepositions, prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries, although he quoted from the
Bible quite frequently in general.
Webster was also different from Johnson in frequently supplying invented examples.
Within the range of the L’s, he provided approximate 2,000 invented examples, or 1.0 such
example on average per entry (Section 4.4). He offered 17.0 invented examples on average
in entries on prepositions, and 10.4 in those on modal auxiliaries.
Facing these facts, I had to seek answers to the following five questions:
(1) Why did Webster frequently supply citations in entries on verbs of high frequency?
Did he imitate Johnson in this respect?
(2) Why did he supply citations less frequently in entries on prepositions and modal
auxiliaries than in verbs of high frequency? Did this follow Johnson’s practice?
(3) Why did Webster prefer to quote from British authors between the beginning of the
Restoration and Johnson’s time? Is this a reflection of his borrowing citations from
Johnson’s Dictionary?
(4) Why did he supply biblical citations especially frequently in entries on prepositions,
prepositional adverbs and modal auxiliaries, unlike Johnson?
(5) Why did Webster use invented examples especially frequently in entries on pre-
positions and modal auxiliaries?
9.2.5 Ways of Answering the Questions
In order to find answers to these questions, it became necessary for me to analyse Johnson’s
and Webster’s relevant verbal examples and their source texts again almost from the very
beginning; as to the latter, they included the prefaces and grammars attached to the
dictionaries, Johnson’s Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language (1747) and Webster’s
“Introduction” to his Dictionary. This was the most painstaking but also most fascinating
part of my research.
I was determined to observe one important principle; there are quite a few similarities
between Johnson’s and Webster’s practices, but I did not want to be swayed by the
temptation to ascribe such similarities to Webster’s copying of Johnson’s Dictionary. This
is because I had already noticed that in some respects Webster did not imitate but made full
use of Johnson’s text. For instance, Webster quite frequently borrowed Johnson’s citations,
but in many cases he used them in a way which Johnson could never have imagined. One
204
example is that Webster used Johnson’s citation for the purpose of expressing his own view
of the usage of go (Section 5.1.4):
J: To GO. v.n. 42.

To extend in meaning.
His amorous expressions go no further than virtue may allow. Dryden’s Ovid, Preface.
----------
W: GO, v.i. 30, 31 and 32.
30. To proceed; to extend. This argument goes far towards proving the point. It goes a great
way towards establishing the innocence of the accused.
31. To have effect; to extend in effect; to avail; to be of force or value. Money goes farther now
than it did during the war.
32. To extend in meaning or purport.
His amorous expressions go no further than virtue may allow. Dryden.
[In the last three examples, the sense of go depends on far, farther, further.]
It seems to me that this has hardly been pointed out by authorities, but his unique use of
Johnson’s citations as above is observable in plenty in Webster’s Dictionary (Section 9.3.6).
9.2.6 Summarizing Johnson’s and Webster’s Practice in Supplying Verbal Examples
The task of finding answers to the questions mentioned in the previous section (Section
9.2.3 and 9.2.4) successfully completed, I was able to obtain satisfactory results. As to
Johnson’s practice, I was able to clarify the following points:
(1) Johnson’s statement that he tried to provide citations from the works of authors
between Sidney’s time and the 1650’s was made from a literary viewpoint (Sections 4.1.1
and 4.1.3). The fact that he did not quote often from such works indicates that his
Dictionary is essentially not a literary work (Sections 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, etc.).
(2) He clearly selected sources of citations according to the types of entry-words.
Evidence comes from the fact that while quoting frequently from Hanmer, a politician,
Harris, a compiler of an encyclopaedic dictionary, Hill, a natural scientist, and Miller, a
botanist for encyclopaedic entry-words within the range of entries on words for the letter L
(Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.2), Johnson did not supply a single citation from these authors in all
entries on verbs of high frequency, prepositions, prepositional adverbs, modal auxiliaries,
and primary verbs and their inflected forms, with the exception of sub-entries devoted to
idioms (Sections 5.1.2, 6.1.2 to 6.2.2, etc.).
(3) He was more descriptive than prescriptive in treating verbs of high frequency
(Section 5.1.1). By contrast, he was strictly prescriptive in treating prepositions (Section
6.1.1). In this situation, he allowed himself to quote often from the Bible in entries on verbs
of high frequency (Sections 5.1.2 to 5.1.3), but hardly ever in entries on prepositions
(Section 6.1.2). He was certainly a person of strong faith, but thought that translations,
including the English Bible, tended to degenerate the language (Sections 1.4.2 and 6.1.3).
Instead, he often quoted from Dryden whose view of prepositional usage was in accord
with his (Sections 6.1.2 to 6.1.3). The situation in entries on prepositions is similar to that
in entries on prepositional adverbs (Section 6.2.2).
205
(4) This also affects his careful selection of citations, i.e. less often in entries on
prepositions and prepositional adverbs than in those on verbs of high frequency (Sections
5.1.2, 6.1.2 and 6.2.2).
(5) In entries on modal auxiliaries, as well as in those on primary verbs and their
inflected forms, Johnson almost exclusively focused on explaining the usage of words
(Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3), often referring to grammatical categories such as
person, number and mood (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.1.5, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3). And Johnson’s practice
to supply verbal examples can be summarized thus: the more he became conscious of usage,
the stricter he became in the selection of citations, decreasing their number and increasing
the proportion of invented examples.
As to Webster’s practice, the following observations can be made.
(1) After 1807, Webster’s ideal style of English was not American English, but the
British English used by authors between the beginning of the Restoration and Johnson’s
time (Section 4.3.2). Webster clearly stated this in the “Introduction” (1828: n. pag. [27th
and 46th]) to his Dictionary (Section 4.3.2). He practised as he preached, and quoted often
from such authors, hardly using citations from American authors (Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3,
5.1.2, etc.).
(2) Like Johnson, Webster was more descriptive than prescriptive in the treatment of
verbs of high frequency (Section 5.1.1) and focused on the senses of the words in their
relevant entries (Sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.4). However, he did not supply as many biblical
citations as Johnson (Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.3). Rather, he preferred to quote from as many
sources as possible there (Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.4).
(3) For prepositions and prepositional adverbs, Webster focused on their usages rather
than senses, as Johnson had done (Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5). However, Webster made
full use of biblical citations in their relevant entries, in contrast to Johnson (Section 6.1.4).
(4) The more closely Webster instructed the usage of words, the less he became
dependent on citations (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 to 8.2.3). He resembled Johnson in
this respect, but the provision of biblical citations was exceptional. For instance, he
instructed the usage of modal auxiliaries and primary verbs especially closely, and in their
relevant entries he used biblical citations which had been strictly selected so that they might
illustrate his instruction well (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 to 8.2.3).
(5) Webster’s Dictionary is characterized by biblical citations, but it would be
apparently against the facts to ascribe this characteristic entirely to his faith (Section 4.5.2).
Rather, it is clear that Webster almost exclusively aimed to give instruction on English
usage by means of them (Sections 4.5, 5.1.3, 6.1.4, etc.). In this practice, he can be regarded
as having made use of the educational situation at his time in which religious education was
highly valued (Section 1.5.3, 3.3.5 and 5.1.3). Actually, most of Webster’s biblical citations
are far simpler than Johnson’s in terms of structure (Section 4.5.5 to 4.5.7, 5.1.3, etc.), and
on some occasions he did not hesitate to change the wording of biblical passages so that
they might be modernized (Sections 4.5.6 and 7.4).
(6) A sixth characteristic of Webster’s Dictionary is his frequent provision of invented
examples (Sections 4.4, 5.1.4, 5.2.2, etc.). He used them especially frequently in treating
modal auxiliaries and primary verbs (Sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 to 8.2.3), the words
whose usage Webster instructed most closely. As mentioned above, he also used the most
strictly selected biblical citations for the treatment of the words (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.1.5,
8.2.2 and 8.2.3).
206
9.3 Specific Facts Concerning Webster’s Unique Lexicographic Practices
9.3.1 Historical Background to Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries
In order to clarify the relations between Webster’s view of the language and his use of
verbal examples, it was inevitable to analyse the historical background not only to his
Dictionary but also to Johnson’s; this was because Johnson’s Dictionary had always been
an indispensable reference work for Webster throughout his entire compilation process. As
to Johnson’s Dictionary, it was compiled to meet the requirements of men of letters in the
latter half of the seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth who ardently hoped
to purify and stabilize the language (Section 3.1.1). For achieving this purpose, Johnson
used two continental dictionaries, the Vocabolario degli Accademici de la Crusca (1612-)
and the Dictionnaire de l’Académie Françoise (1694-) which had been published to refine
the Italian and French languages, as indispensable reference works throughout his
compilation process of the Dictionary (Sections 3.1.2 to 3.1.6). However, it should be noted
that Johnson’s interest almost always lay in establishing the grammar and usage rather than
the condition of the language of literature (Section 1.4). Though he was usually prescriptive
in this respect, which was natural when the trend of linguistic thought at his time is taken
into account, his view of grammar and usage exerted a strong influence to the extent that
Joseph Priestley, a forerunner of descriptive grammarians, incorporated some of its unique
aspects into his grammars (Section 3.2).
In contrast to Johnson’s, Webster’s Dictionary was compiled with the growing demand
for teaching the language to the American public as a backdrop, with little relevance to the
literary world (Section 3.3.5). In this regard, how well his Dictionary matched the demand
of the time was to be clearly reflected in the letters exchanged between publishing
companies and the teachers of the language concerning the “dictionary war” which was
waged between Webster’s camp and Joseph Worcester, another leading lexicographer in
America in the first half of the nineteenth century (Section 3.3.4). That is, since Webster
was originally a grammarian, his Dictionary was generally expected to contribute greatly to
improve the language skills of the American public. Concerning his grammar, which had
been formulated after several twists and turns, was more descriptive than prescriptive,
though it was not divorced from prescriptivism in some unignorable aspects (Section 5.1.4).
In this connection, it will be important to note that Webster took little trouble about
establishing an American style of English by compiling his Dictionary (Sections 3.3.1 to
3.3.3).
9.3.2 Webster’s Modifications to the Structure of Entries in Johnson’s Dictionary
For the purpose of gaining an appreciation of the structure of entries in Webster’s

Dictionary, it will be necessary to overview that of Johnson’s at the same time. This is
because the unique features of the former were produced mainly by modifying the latter.
Then, it can be said from a broader perspective that, in formulating the structure of the
entries in his Dictionary, Johnson was strongly influenced by the two continental
dictionaries mentioned above (Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.6). Specifically, the renowned
arrangement of numbered definitions in his Dictionary, which divides entries by the senses
207
and idioms of the entry word, is an extension of the style adopted in theVocabolario
(Section 3.1.3); his use of citations can be regarded as following the model of the
Vocabolario and that of invented examples as copying the precedent of the Dictionnaire
(Section 3.1.4); and he is thought to have provided information on verbal inflections, also
suggested by the Dictionnaire (Section 3.1.5). In addition to such influences by the two
continental dictionaries, Johnson occasionally devised some particular ways of expressing
his view of English grammar and usage effectively. Webster, according to his own needs,
modified the structure of the entries in Johnson’s Dictionary in two respects: undivided
long entries on prepositions and frequent provision of introductory remarks.
(1) Webster’s Undivided Long Entries on Prepositions

In Johnson’s case, he closely divided entries on prepositions according to the senses,
‘semantic concepts’ and usage of the words (Section 6.1.1). Webster, fully aware of the
merits of the method, occasionally provided entries on the same words which are not
divided into sub-entries. Specifically, he practised this in entries on at, from, in and of
within the range of my analyses (Section 6.1.1). However, the practice never means that
Webster made light of prepositions. For instance, his entry on of consists of 115 lines
(Section 6.1.1). In terms of verbal examples, it includes 6 biblical passages as authoritative
citations, 31 invented phrases and sentences and 1 citation from Franklin. Besides, in the
entry, Webster also referred to prepositions other than of to make its senses and usage clear.
The situation is similar as to the entries on at, from and in. In a sense, some of entries on
prepositions in Webster’s Dictionary can be regarded as short articles whose contents
would have been difficult to achieve by the method of sub-dividing entries.
(2) Webster’s Frequent Provision of Introductory Remarks

Johnson provided introductory remarks very rarely and almost only in the sphere of entries
on modal auxiliaries (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.15). In contrast, Webster performed the practice
much more frequently, not only in entries on modal auxiliaries (Section 8.1.2) but also in
those on verbs of high frequency (Section 5.1.1) and prepositional adverbs (Section 6.2.4).
For instance, in the entry on take (v.t.) (Section 5.1.1), which has 40 sub-entries, he made
the following remarks which end with the word Thus and a comma:
In a general sense, to get hold or gain possession of a thing in almost any manner, either by
receiving it when offered, or by using exertion to obtain it. Take differs from seize, as it does not
always imply haste, force or violence. It more generally denotes to gain or receive into possession
in a peaceable manner, either passively or by active exertions. Thus,
Then, after Thus, Webster provided other sub-entries one after another. This indicates that
the first sub-entry is an introduction to the following 39 sub-entries. Such a sub-entry for
introductory remarks is in no way found in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s
Dictionary; Johnson simply stated the following in the first sub-entry on the word:
To receive what is offered.
Webster’s modifications of the structure of the entries in Johnson’s Dictionary are not
limited to the points mentioned above. However, the two examples will be enough to
208
suggest how Webster exercised his ingenuity to express his unique view of English
grammar and usage.
9.3.3 Difference between Johnson’s and Webster’s Views on Usage
Both Johnson and Webster had been torn between prescriptivism and descriptivism before
they began to compile their dictionaries (Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3 and 1.5.2). There are some
cases in their dictionaries where traces of such experiences are clearly evident. For instance,
in treating the expression have got, Johnson seems to be descriptive and Webster
prescriptive (Section 5.1.4). In the entry on get in his Dictionary, Johnson simply defined
the expression as “To have possession of; to hold”. In contrast to this, Webster, in its
corresponding entry, censured the use of have got and stated the following:
This is a most common, but gross abuse of this word. We constantly hear it said, I have got no
corn, I have got no money, she has got a fair complexion, when the person means only, I have no
corn, I have no money, she has a fair complexion.
In the entry on averse, trying to prove the legitimacy of averse from, Johnson provided 2
sub-entries with relevant citations: one for the indication of the ‘correct’ collocation averse
from, and the other for the ‘wrong’ collocation averse to (Section 7.4). In the former
Johnson stated “It has most properly from before the object of aversion”, and in the latter
“Very frequently, but improperly, to”. In contrast to this, Webster stated the following
(Section 7.4):
This word and its derivatives ought to be followed by to, and never by from. This word includes
the idea of from; but the literal meaning being lost, the affection of the mind signified by the word,
is exerted towards the object of dislike, and like its kindred terms, hatred, dislike, contrary,
repugnant, &c., should be followed by to. Indeed it is absurd to speak of an affection of the mind
exerted from an object. Averse expresses a less degree of opposition in the mind, than detesting
and abhorring.
Webster, as a grammarian, was also keenly interested in etymology (Section 1.5.4) and
knew the original sense of averse, but was essentially a lexicographer who attached much
importance to language as a medium of communication.
In conjunction with Johnson’s changing views on usage, it may be worth pointing out his
use of the technical term ‘conjunctive mood’ (Section 8.2.3). In the “Grammar” attached to
his Dictionary, Johnson (1755: n. pag. [7th]) stated that “Wert is properly of the
conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative”. According to Sterling
Leonard (1962:200-209), the term ‘conjunctive mood’ which Johnson used here puzzled
many grammarians at Johnson’s time, because most of them had been accustomed to use
‘subjunctive mood’ until Johnson’s Dictionary was published. As for Johnson, he (1755: n.
pag. [6th-8th in the “Grammar”]) stipulated 4 moods in the language: the indicative,
imperative, conjunctive and infinitive. The subjunctive mood was not included among these.
In his “Grammar”, Johnson even claimed that:
209
The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded, or rather the
conjunctive is wholly neglected, when some convenience of verification does not invite its revival.
It is used among the purer writers after if, though, ere, before, whether, except, unless, whatsoever,
whomsoever, and words of wishing; as, Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be
ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not. (1755: n. pag. [8th in the “Grammar”])
However, in the fourth edition of his Dictionary, Johnson used the term ‘subjunctive’ as
follows in the entry on wert, which had not been present in the first edition:
[...] the second person singular of the subjunctive imperfect of To be.

Thou wert heard. Ben. Johnson.
This can be regarded as evidence of the fact that Johnson’s view of grammar changed after
he published the first edition of his Dictionary.
9.3.4 The Modernity of Webster’s View of Usage
As mentioned in the previous sub-section, Webster was prescriptive about have got and
descriptive about averse. However, his statements in the respective entries are both in
accord with the view of contemporary lexicographers, offering a glimpse of modernity in
his view of usage. For instance, concerning have got, the COBUILD reads (Section 5.1.4):
[...] ‘have’ alone would be correct but more formal. The word got itself adds nothing to the
meaning of ‘have’. The form have got looks as if it is the auxiliary ‘have’ followed by the past
participle of the verb ‘get’, but it is used with the same meanings as the main verb ‘have’, in the
senses of owning or possessing things.
On averse, the OED reads (Section 7.4):
[...] although condemned by Johnson as etymologically improper, is justified by the consideration

that these words express a mental relation analogous to that indicated by hostile, contrary,
repugnant, hostility, opposition, dislike, and naturally take the same constitution. Aversion in the
sense of an action, which would be properly followed by from, is now obsolete.
Webster’s modernity in his view of English usage will be further confirmed when we read
his treatment of shall and should. Concerning the former, in the entry on shall, we see
Webster the etymologist and grammarian integrated with Webster the lexicographer and
teacher of the language for the American public at his time (Section 8.1.2). At the
beginning of the first sub-entry in the entry, Webster quoted sentences from Old English
literature, which are not seen in the corresponding entry in Johnson’s Dictionary, to show
the original use of shall; he claimed there that the word had not been a modal auxiliary.
However, he was not a person clinging to the archaic usage of the word, stating that “the
signification of shall is considerably deflected from its primitive sense” and that “It is now
210
treated as a mere auxiliary to other verbs, serving to form some of the tenses”. Then, he
provided 60 lines of comments on the senses and usage of shall at his time.
As to Webster’s treatment of should, he uniquely treated the function of should which
has been of interest to modern grammarians (Section 8.1.3). This is called ‘emotional
should ’ by Otto Jespersen (1933) and ‘putative should’ ’ by Randolph Quirk et al. (1985).
In treating this function of the word, Webster stated the following:
“We think it strange that stones should fall from the aerial regions.” In this use should implies that
stones do fall. In all similar phrases, should implies the actual existence of the fact, without a
condition or supposition.
This statement agrees with Quirk et al. ’s (1985:234) that “In using should, the speaker
entertains, as it were, some ‘putative’ world, recognizing that it may well exist or come into
existence”. Though brief and limited, Webster’s description of the use of the word is clear,
and he also supplied verbal examples there. His treatment of such a function of should
indicates that he was a pioneer of modern scholarly grammar of English.
9.3.5 Webster’s Development of Johnson’s Treatment of Words and Phrases
Webster not only provided information on the usage of words which is not seen in
Johnson’s Dictionary, he also developed Johnson’s treatment of words and phrases. To
exemplify this point, I will compare Johnson’s and Webster’s treatment of certain
collocations and compound words here.
(1) Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Verb-preposition and Adjective-preposition

Collocations
Stefania Nuccorini’s paper ‘Towards an “ideal” dictionary of English collocations’ (2003)
could be used to support the claim that Johnson and Webster were, respectively,
forerunners of modern lexicographers treating verb-preposition and adjective-preposition
collocations (Section 7.6).
Webster dealt with a considerable number of such collocations, reflecting his keen
interest in prepositional usage (Section 7.1). Although disregarding 5 of Johnson's
treatments of such collocations, Webster added 20 new relevant descriptions (Sections 7.2
and 7.5). For the purpose of illustrating these newly added descriptions, he utilised biblical
passages irrespective of his religious faith.
(2) Johnson’s and Webster’s Treatment of Compound Words

In entries on prepositional adverbs, Johnson showed his interest in treating compound
words (Section 6.2.3). Specifically, in a sub-entry on over, stating that “In composition it
has a great variety of significations; it is arbitrarily prefixed to nouns, adjectives, or other
parts of speech in a sense equivalent to more than enough; too much”, Johnson supplied 18
citations which include various compound words formed with over and other words. Not
satisfied with this, he further provided no less than 60 entries on words beginning with over.
Like Johnson, Webster was also interested in compound words (Section 6.2.4). However,
Webster’s treatment of these words seems to have been more skilful than Johnson in
211
discriminating their senses. Johnson referred to compound words with over with the
recognition that over in them had the sense “more than enough; too much” only. Differently
from this practice, Webster pointed out the senses of “spreading, covering above”, “across”
and “changing sides”, as well as “excess or superiority”, of the same word in the entry on
over in relation to compound words. In this sense, Webster can be said to have been even
more skilful than Johnson in discriminating the senses of the word. Webster also referred to
compound words with after in its relevant entry as follows:
After is prefixed to many words, forming compounds, but retaining its genuine signification. Some
of the following words are of this kind, but in some of them after seems rather to be a separate
word.
Stating this, Webster provided many entries on related compound words as his words
“Some of the following words are of this kind [...]” indicate. That is, the last part of the
entry on after in Webster’s Dictionary is also an introductory remark to entries on the
respective compound words. After this statement concerning compound words with after,
Webster provided 50 entries on the words including after-account, after-ages, after-band,
after-birth and after-clap.
9.3.6 Webster’s Use of Johnson’s Citations
In Section 9.2.5, I discussed the Johnson’s usual practice in supplying citations. In this sub-
section, I will indicate two types of Webster’s use of Johnson’s citations; one reveals the
differences between Johnson’s and Webster’s recognition of words, and the other signifies
Webster’s unique use of Johnson’s citations.
(1) Johnson’s and Webster’s Recognition of Words

Webster borrowed numerous citations from Johnson’s Dictionary to express his recognition
of words which was different from Johnson’s. I will confirm here a few examples which
concern Webster’s attribution of parts of speech and that of the senses of words. As to the
former, the citations which Johnson and Webster supplied in the entries on last and set can
be mentioned. Firstly, in his treatment of the idiom at last, Johnson supplied a biblical
citation “Gad, a troop shall overcome him: but he shall overcome at the last ” in the entry
on the word last as a noun (Section 4.5.6), while Webster supplied the very same citation in
the entry on the word last as an adjective (Section 4.5.6). Secondly, both lexicographers
supplied a biblical citation “Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set, by reason of his
age” in their dictionaries. Webster allocated it to the entry on the word set as a transitive
verb, while Johnson used it in the entry on the word as an intransitive verb (Section 5.1.3).
With regard to the latter, citations which concern the differences in the recognition of the
senses of words, Webster sometimes separated a bunch of citations which are supplied in a
single sub-entry in Johnson’s Dictionary and allocated each to different sub-entries
(Sections 4.5.6, 5.1.3 and 5.1.4). The theory is widely accepted that Johnson quite closely
divided the senses of words. Actually, in some entries in Johnson’s Dictionary, the number
of sub-entries is larger than that in the OED. However, Webster’s mentioned above shows
the fact that he occasionally examined the senses of words even more closely than Johnson.
212
Webster occasionally examined the senses of words, e.g. of verbs of high frequency, even
more closely than Johnson (Section 5.1.1). Thus, Webster divided 9 entries into more sub-
entries than Johnson, based on the specific senses of their words: break (v.t), break (v.i.),
cast (v.i.), fall (v.t.), give (v.t.), make (v.t.), set (v.t.), run (v.i.) and run (v.t.). In the entry
on run (v.i.), for example, Webster provided 56 sub-entries, compared with Johnson’s 43.
Besides, in contradiction to widely accepted view, Webster treated the figurative senses of
some words in a manner which was very different from Johnson’s (Section 4.4).
(2) Webster’s Unique Use of Johnson’s Citations

Webster quite often used Johnson’s citations in various ways which Johnson could never
have imagined. To illustrate this point, I will refer to a few examples of Webster’s
treatment of prepositional usage and elliptical expressions. Concerning the former, one
example is that Johnson supplied the biblical citation “Take my yoke upon you, and learn
of me; for I am meek and lowly” in the entry on learn (v.n.) for the sense “To take pattern”
(Section 4.5.6). Webster used this citation for the meaning “To gain or receive knowledge;
to receive instruction; to take pattern; with of ” in the corresponding entry (Section 4.5.6).
As to the latter, Webster developed an interest in treating elliptical expressions, which
Johnson had never referred to within the whole range of my analysis. In treating this type of
expression, Webster consistently availed himself of Johnson’s citations, e.g. in 4 sub-
entries on verbs of high frequency (Section 5.1.4) and 1 sub-entry on a modal auxiliary
(Section 8.1.3).
9.3.7 Webster’s Invented Examples
Johnson used several invented examples in entries on prepositional adverbs (Section 6.2.3)
and a considerable number of them in entries on modal auxiliaries (Sections 8.1.2 to 8.1.5).
In contrast, Webster supplied quite a few invented examples throughout the whole range of
his Dictionary; it is estimated that approximately 2,000 such examples can be found within
the range of 2,024 entries on words for the letter L (Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4).
As to Johnson’s use of invented examples, he almost always supplied them with usage
notes and usually without citations. The most conspicuous example is the following
(Section 8.1.3):
J: SHOULD. v.n. 1-5.

1. This is a kind of auxiliary verb used in the conjunctive mood, of which the signification is
not easily fixed.
2. I SHOULD go. It is my business or duty to go.
3. If I SHOULD go. If it happens that I go.
4. Thou SHOULD’ST go. Thou oughtest to go.
5. If thou SHOULD’ST go. If it happens that thou goest.
As for Webster, who seems to have been well aware of such examples as above, made use
of and developed the methods revealed in them and supplied invented examples in at least 3
ways (as shown in Section 4.4).
213
9.4 Final Remarks and New Horizons of Research
It may now be concluded, after reflecting on the process of the analyses (Section 9.2) and
citing major specific examples from the data assembled in Chapters 1 to 8 (Section 9.3),
that essentially Johnson’s Dictionary is not a literary dictionary and Webster’s is not
encyclopaedic. They are fundamentally dictionaries of the language. In compiling them,
Johnson utilized his knowledge of literary works for the purpose of giving guidance on the
usage of words, and Webster used the dictionary text to express his view of grammar. For
the latter, the provision of encyclopaedic information in his Dictionary was of secondary
importance, however innovative it may have been in the history of English lexicography. In
this project, I attempted to reveal the relationship between Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal
examples, their views of the language and the usage of words.
In addition to resulting in quite a few findings which verify such facts, the project seems
to have opened doors to promising investigations of Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries
and the development of American lexicography as well as the wider historical study of
English lexicography. Specifically, there are at least three points which indicate the need
for further research, and I will finish the thesis by referring to these as follows:
(1) In treating inflected forms of verbs of high frequency, it has been proved that
Webster’s view of the usage of the words considerably differs from Johnson’s (Section 5.2).
In conjunction with this, it would be meaningful to compare their view of morphology in
general which are reflected in the dictionaries.
(2) The project clarified that Johnson and Webster very frequently gave indications of
the usage of words by means of verbal examples, sometimes explicitly and sometimes
implicitly. It would be worthwhile to put such indications in systematic order so that the
relationship between each of them may be clarified with the provision of an appropriate
method for it.
(3) From a wider perspective, there is a probability that the foundation of American
lexicography was laid through the ‘dictionary war’ waged between Webster’s camp and
Worcester (Section 3.3.4). With this recognition in mind, some authorities have compared
the dictionaries of Webster’s with those of Worcester (Section 3.3.4). However, as far as I
can judge, how the use of verbal examples had developed in the ‘war’ has not been clarified.
It seems that a sampling method and a statistical method which I have adopted in the
project might be useful for future investigations.
214
Bibliography
I Cited Dictionaries and Other Sources
AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGe (1st edition) (2 vols.) by Noah Webster
(1828). Facsimile reprint, New York and London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1970.
AN AMERICAN GLOSSARY (an enlarged edition) (introduction by Margaret M. Bryant) by Richard L.
Thornton (1962). New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.
COLLINS COBUILD ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARY (1st edition) by John Sinclair, et. al. (eds) (1987).
London and Glasgow: Collins.
A COMPENDIOUS DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGe by Noah Webster (1806). Facsimile reprint,
New York: Crown Publishers, 1970.
THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH (6th edition) by J. B. Sykes (ed.) (1976).
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
DICTIONARIUM BRITANNICUM (2nd edition) by Nathan Bailey (1736). London: Printed for T. Cox.
A DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES (4 vols.) by Sir William A. Craigie
and James R. Hulbert (ed.) (1938-44). Chicago, Illiniois: The University of Chicago Press.
A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1st edition) (2 vols.) by Samuel Johnson (1755).
Facsimile reprint, Tokyo: Yushodo, 1983.
A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (an abridged edition of the 1st edition) (2 vols.) by Samuel
Johnson (1756). Facsimile reprint, Tokyo: Kenkyusha, 1985.
A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th edition) (2 vols.) by Samuel Johnson (1773).
Facsimile reprint (introduction by James L. Clifford), Beirut, Lebanon: Librarie du Liban, 1978.
DICTIONNAIRE DE L’ACADÉMIE FRANÇOISE (3rd edition) (2 vols.) by L’Académie Françoise (1740).
Paris: Jean-Baptiste Coignard.
ETYMOLOGICON LINGUAE ANGLICANAE by Stephen Skinner (1671). Facsimile reprint, Hildesheim and
New York: Georg Olms, 1970.
GAZOPHYLACIUM ANGLICANUM by an anonymous author (1689). Facsimile reprint, Menston: Scolar
Press, 1969.
THE HOLY BIBLE: AN EXACT REPRINT IN ROMAN TYPE, PAGE FOR PAGE OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION
PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1611 (introduction by Alfred W. Pollard) by Oxford University Press (ed)
(1985). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
THE HOLY BIBLE, CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, IN THE COMMON VERSION: WITH THE
AMENDMENTS OF THE LANGUAGE by Noah Webster (1833). New Haven: Hezekiah Home & Co.,
and A. H. Maltby.
A NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY by J. K. (1702). Facsimile reprint, Hildesheim and New York: Georg
Olms, 1974.
OXFORD ADVANCED LEARNER’S DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH (4th edition) by Anthony P. Cowie,
et. al. (eds) (1989). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2nd edition) (20 vols.) by J.A. Simpson, E.S.C. Weiner, et. al.
(eds) (1989). Oxford: Clarendon Press, and New York: Oxford University Press.
VOCABOLARIO DEGLI ACCADEMICI DE LA CRUSCA (1st edition) (1612) by Gli Accademici de la Crusca.
Facsimile reprint, Firenze: Le Lettere, 1987.
215
II Cited Books and Papers
Aarsleff, Hans (1967), The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Allen, Harold B. (1977), ‘Reactions in Johnson’s Dictionary to some of Shakespeare’s vocabulary’,
in: Hobar, Donald (ed.) Papers of the Dictionary Society of North America 1977. Terre Haute,
Indiana: Indiana State University, 1-8.
Atkinson, A. D. (1950), ‘Dr. Johnson and Science’, Notes and Quiries, CXCV, 338-341.
Bately, Janet A. (1964), ‘Dryden’s revisions in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy’, Review of English
Studies, XV, 268-282.
Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas (2002), A History of the English Language (5th edition).
London and New York: Routledge.
Béjoint, Henri (1994), Tradition and Innovation in Modern English Dictionaries (Oxford Studies in
Lexicography and Lexicology). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Benson, Morton and Ilson, Robert (1986), Lexicographical Description of English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Bolton, Whitney French (1982), A Living Language: the History and Structure of English. New York:
Random House.
Boulton, James T. (ed.) (1971), Johnson: Critical Heritage (the Critical Heritage Seriese, vol. 68).
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Brewer, Charlotte (1999), ‘OED sources’ in Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.) Lexicography and the ‘OED’:
Pioneers in the Untrodden Forest, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 40-58.
Burchfield, Robert W. (1985), The English Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.
Close, R. A. (1981), English as a Foreign Language: Its Constant Grammatical Problems (3rd
edition), London: George Allen & Unwin.
Cowie, Anthony P. (1989), ‘The language of examples in English learners’ dictionaries’, in: James,
Gregory (ed.) Lexicographers and Their Works (Exeter Linguistic Studies, vol. 14), Exeter:
University of Exeter, 55-65.
Cubberley, Ellwood Patterson (ed.) (1920), Readings in the History of Education: a Collection of
Sources and Readings to Illustrate the Development of educational Practice, Theory and
Organization. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
DeMaria, Robert, Jr. (1986), Johnson’s ‘Dictionary’ and the Language of Learning. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Downes, Rackstraw (1962), ‘Johnson’s theory of language’, Review of English Literature, III, 29-41.
Drabble, Margaret (ed.) (1985), The Oxford Companion to English Literature (new edition). Oxford,
New York, Tokyo and Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Dryden, John (1679), Troilus and Cressida. Reprint, Novak, Maximillian E. et al. (eds), The Works of
John Dryden vol. 13. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, 217-355.
Fleeman, David J. (1984), ‘Dr Johnson’s Dictionary, 1755’, in: Yung, Kai Kin (ed.) Samuel Johnson
1709-84 (published to accompany an exhibition held at the Art's Council premises at 105
Piccadilly, London, 1984), London: The Herbert Press Ltd, 37-45.
Freed, Lewis (1939), ‘The sources of Johnson’s dictionary’ (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation at
Cornell University).
Friend, Joseph Harold (1967), The Development of American Lexicography 1798-1864. Hague:
Mouton.
Gibson, Martha Jane (1936), ‘America’s first lexicographer Samuel Johnson Jr., 1757-1836’,
American Speech XI, 283-292.
216
Hall, Robert A., Jr. (1974), External History of the Romance Languages (Foundations of Linguistic
Series, Comparative Romance Grammar, vol. 1). New York: American Pub. Co.
Hartmann, Reinhard R. K. and James, Gregory (1998) (revised and paperback edition published in
2001), Dictionary of Lexicography, London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
Hayashi, Tetsuro (1978), The Theory of English Lexicography 1530-1791 (Amsterdam Studies in the
Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies in the History of Linguistics, vol.
18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hill, George Birkbeck (ed.) (1897), Johnsonian Miscellanies (2 vols.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ikeda, Makoto (1999), Competing Grammars: Noah Webster’s Vain Efforts to Defeat Lindley Murray.
Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko (1971), Noah Webster’s Grammar: Traditions and Innovations: a Critical Study
on Early English Grammars Published in the United States (The Proceedings of the Department of
Foreign Languages and Literatures, College of General Education, University of Tokyo vol. XIX,
no. 2). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Jespersen, Otto (1933), Essentials of English Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Johnson, Samuel (1747), The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language. Facsimile reprint,
Menston: Scolar Press, 1970.
– (1779), The Life of Dryden. Reprint, The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL. D. vol. 7. London: Talboys
and Wheeler, and William Pickering, 1825, 245-360.
Kojima, Yoshiro (1999), Eigo-jisho no Hensen: Ei Bei Nippon wo Awasemite (The Historical Change
in English Dictionaries: Its Comparative Assessment in Britain, America and Japan). Tokyo:
Kenkyusha.
Kolb, Gwin J. and Ruth A. (1972), ‘The selection and use of the illustrative quotations in Dr.
Johnson’s Dictionary’, in: Weinbrot, Howard D. (ed.), New Aspects of Lexicography: Literary
Criticism, Intellectual History, and Social Change, Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern
Illinois University Press, 61-72.
Krapp, George Philip (1925), The English Language in America (2 vols.). New York: Appleton
Century Crofts.
Laird, Charlton Grant (1972), Language in America reissued (originally published, Cleveland: World
Publishing, 1970). London: Englewood Cliffs.
Landau, Sidney I. (1984), Dictionaries: the Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (1975), A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Leonard, Sterling Andrus (1962), The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800 (a
reissued edition) (originally published in 1929 as Number 25 in the University of Wisconsin
Studies in Language and Literature). New York: Russell & Russell.
Long, Ralph B. (1961), The Sentence and Its Parts: A Grammar of Contemporary English. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Lowth, Robert (1762), A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Facsimile Reprint, Menston: Scolar
Press, 1969.
McAdam, Edward L., Jr. and Milne, George (eds) (1963), Johnson’s Dictionary: a Modern Selection.
New York: Pantheon Books.
McArthur, Tom (1986), Worlds of Reference: Lexicography, Learning and Language from the Clay
Tablet to the Computer. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
– (ed.) (1992), The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
Malone, Kemp (1925), ‘A linguistic patriot’, American Speech, I, 26-31.
Metzger, Bruce M. (2001), The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House.
217
Micklethwait, David (2000), Noah Webster and the American Dictionary. Jefferson, North Carolina:
McFarland & Company.
Migliorini, Bruno (1983), Storia della Lingua Italiana (7th edition). Firenze: Sansoni Editore.
Miyoshi, Kusujiro (1982), ‘A study of American English dictionaries with special reference to Noah
Webster’ (unpublished master’s dissertation at Kansai University of Foreign Studies).
– (1984), ‘Priestley’s grammar and Johnson’s Dictionary’, Studies in Modern English I, 7-14.
– (1987), ‘Priestley no eibunten to Johnson no eigojiten’ (‘Priestley’s Rudiments and Johnson’s
Dictionary’), The Journal of Okayama Women’s Junior College, X, 49-57.
– (1989), ‘Johnson no jiten: yourei no gogakushiteki igi’ (‘Johnson’s Dictionary: the linguistic
significance of its citations’), The Journal of Okayama Women’s Junior College, XII, 125-133.
– (1990), ‘A linguistic approach to Webster’s quotations from the Bible’, in: Nagashima, Daisuke and
Mizutori, Yoshitaka (eds) Essays in Honor of Professor Haruo Kozu: On the Occasion of His
Retirement from Kansai University of Foreign Studies, Osaka: The Intercultural Research Institute
Kansai Universities of Foreign Studies, 163-181.
– (1992), ‘J. K.’s dictionary (1702) reconsidered’, in: Tommola, Hannu et al. (eds) Euralex ’92
Proceedings I-II: Papers Submitted to the 5th EURALEX International Congress on Lexicography
in Tampere, Finland, Part II (Studia Translatologica, Publications of the Department of
Translation Studies, University of Tampere, Finland, ser. A, vol. 2). Tampere: Tampereen
Yliopisto, 601-606.
– (1997), ‘S. Johnson to tairiku no gengo academy: hin’yodoshi no koumoku wo chushin ni’ (‘The
influence of continental language academies on S. Johnson: his treatment of verbs of high
frequency’), Journal of Soka Women’s College, XII, 63-77.
Morton, Herbert C. (1994), The Story of ‘Webster’s Third’: Philip Gove’s Controversial Dictionary
and Its Critics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, James (1900), The Evolution of English Lexicography. Reprint, College Park, Maryland:
McGarth Publishing Company, 1970.
Nagashima, Daisuke (1974), Eibei no Jisho: Rekishi to Genjo (English Dictionaries: Past and
Present). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
– (1983), Johnson-no Eigo-jiten: Sono Rekishiteki Igi (Johnson’s Dictionary: Its Historical
Significance). Tokyo: Taishukan.
– (1988), Johnson the Philologist (Kansai University of Foreign Studies Intercultural Research
Institute Monograph, no. 20). Osaka: The Intercultural Research Institute, Kansai University of
Foreign Studies.
Nuccorini, Stefania. (2003), ‘Towards an “ideal” dictionary of English collocations’, in: Sterkenbur,
Piet van (ed.) A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 366-387.
Osselton, Noel E. (1994), ‘Dr Johnson and the spelling of dispatch’’, International Journal of
Lexicography, vol. 7, no. 4, 307-310.
– (1995), Chosen Words: Past and Present Problems for Dictionary Makers (Exeter Linguistic
Studies). Exeter: University of Exeter.
Priestley, Joseph (1761), The Rudiments of English Grammar (1st edition). Facsimile reprint,
Mensston: Scolar Press,1969.
– (1762), A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. Reprint,
Yamakawa, Kikuo (ed.), Joseph Priestley’s ‘The Rudiments of English Grammar’ and ‘A Course
of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar’ with Explanatory Remarks by
Kikuo Yamakawa (A Reprint Series of Books Relating to the English Language, vol. 14), Tokyo:
Nan’un-do, 1971, 141-273.
– (1769), The Rudiments of English Grammar (2nd edition). Reprint, Yamakawa, Kikuo (ed.), Joseph
Priestley’s ‘The Rudiments of English Grammar’ and ‘A Course of Lectures on the Theory of
Language, and Universal Grammar’ with Explanatory Remarks by Kikuo Yamakawa (A Reprint
Series of Books Relating to the English Language, vol. 14), Tokyo: Nan’un-do, 1971, 7-137.
218
Pyles, Thomas (1954), Words and Ways of American English: an Authoritative Account of the
Origins, Growth and Present State of the English Language in America. London: Andrew Melrose.
Quinlan, Maurice J. (1964), Samuel Johnson: a Layman’s Religion. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Quirk, Randolph, et. al. (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and
New York: Longman.
Read, Allen Walker (1967), ‘The spread of German linguistic learning in New England during the
lifetime of Noah Webster’, American Speech XLI, 163-181.
– (1979), ‘The war of the dictionaries in the Middle West’ in Congleton, J. E. et. al. (eds) Papers in
Lexicography in Honor of Warren N. Cordell, Terre Haute, Indiana: The Dictionary Society of
North America, 3-15.
– (1986a), ‘Competing lexicographical traditions in America’, in: Hartmann, Reinhard R. K. (ed.) The
History of Lexicography: Papers from the Dictionary Research Centre Seminar at Exeter, March
1986 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies in
the History of the Language Sciences, vol. 40), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 197-206.
– (1986b), ‘The history of lexicography’, in: Ilson, Robert (ed.) Lexicography: an Emerging
International Profession, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 28-50.
Reddick, Allen (1996), The Making of Johnson’s Dictionary 1746-1773 (a revised and first paperback
edition) (first published, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Reed, Joseph W., Jr. (1962), ‘Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson’, American Speech, XXXVII,
95-105.
Roe, Keith (1977), ‘A survey of the encyclopedic tradition in English Dictionaries’ in Hobar, Donald
(ed.) Papers of the Dictionary Society of North America 1977. Terre Haute, Indiana: Indiana State
University, 16-23.
Rollins, Richard M. (1980), The Long Journey of Noah Webster. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Schreyer, Rüdiger (2000), ‘Illustrations of authority quotations in Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the
English Language’, Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography, XVI, 58-103.
Sherbo, Arthur (1956), Samuel Johnson: Editor of Shakespeare with an Essay on ‘The Adventurer’
(Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, vol. 42). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Siebert, Donald T. (1986), ‘Bubbled, bamboozled, and bit: “low bad” words in Johnson’s Dictionary’,
Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, vol. 26, no. 3, 485-496.
Simon, Irène (1963), ‘Dryden’s revision of the Essay of Dramatic Poesy’, Review of English Studies,
XIV, 132-141.
Sledd, James H. and Kolb, Gwin J. (1955), Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary: Essays in the Biography of a
Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, James W. (1979), ‘A sketch of the history of the dictionary of English usage’, in: Congleton, J.
E. et. al. (eds) Papers in Lexicography in Honor of Warren N. Cordell, Terre Haute, Indiana: The
Dictionary Society of North America, 47-58.
Starnes, De Witt T. and Noyes, Gertrude E. (1991), The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson,
1604-1755 (a reissued edition) (introduction by Gabriele Stein) (first published, Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina, 1946) (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science, Series III – Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, vol. 57). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Stein, Gabriele (1985), The English Dictinary before Cawdrey (Lexicographica Series Maior 9).
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Stenberg, Theodore (1944), ‘Quotations from Pope in Johnson’s dictionary’, Studies in English, vol.
17, no. 97, 197-210.
Struble, Mildred C. (1933), A Johnson Handbook. New York: F. S. Crofts & Co.
219
Sundby, Bertil (1985), ‘Writing a dictionary of normative grammar’, in: Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl and
Zettersten, Arne (eds) Symposium on Lexicography II: Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Lexicography, May 16-17, 1984 at the University of Copenhagen (Lexicographica
Series Maior 5), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 157-168.
– (ed.) (1991), A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar, 1700-1800 (Amsterdam Studies in the
Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III – Studies in the History of the Linguistic
Science, vol. 63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Swift, Jonathan (1712), A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue.
Facsimile reprint, Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.
Tooke, John Horne (1798), ü0. 20! 02. RU 7KH 'LYHUVLRQV RI 3XUOH\ vol. 1. Facsimile Reprint,
Menston: Scolar Press, 1968.
Trench, Richard C. (1857), On Some Deficiencies in Our English Dictionaries (Transactions of the
Philological Society 1857). London: J. W. Parker.
Wahba, Magdi (ed.) (1962), Johnsonian Studies: Including a Bibliography of Johnsonian Studies,
1950-1960 Compiled by James L. Clifford and Donald J. Greene. Cairo: Société Orientale de
Publicité Press.
Wakelin, Martyn F. (1987), ‘The treatment of dialect in English dictionaries’, in: Burchfield, Robert
(ed.) Studies in Lexicography, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 156-177.
Watt, Ian (1962), ‘Dr. Johnson and the literature of experience’, in: Wahba, Magdi (ed.) Johnsonian
Studies: Including a Bibliography of Johnsonian Studies, 1950-1960 Compiled by James L.
Clifford and Donald J. Greene. Cairo: Société Orientale de Publicité Press, 15-22.
Webster, Noah. (1789), Dissertations on the English Language: with Notes, Historical and Critical.
Facsimile reprint, Menston: Scolar Press, 1967.
Weinbrot, Howard D. (1972), ‘Samuel Johnson’s Plan and preface to the Dictionary: the growth of a
lexicographer’s mind’, in: H. D. Weinbrot, Haward D. (ed.) New Aspects of Lexicography:
Literary Criticism, Intellectual History, and Social Change, Carbondale and Edwardsville:
Southern Illinois University Press, 73-94.
Wells, Ronald A. (1973), Dictionaries and the Authoritarian Tradition: a Study in English Usage and
Lexicography. Hague: Mouton.
Wimsatt, William K., Jr. (1941), The Prose Style of Samuel Johnson (Yale Studies in English, vol.
94). New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
– (1959), ‘Johnson’s dictionary: April 15, 1955’ in Hilles, Frederick W. (ed.) New Light on Dr.
Johnson: Essays on the Occasion of His 250th Birthday, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press, 65-90.
Yamakawa, Kikuo (ed.) (1971), Joseph Priestley’s ‘The Rudiments of English Grammar’ and ‘A
Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar’ with Explanatory
Remarks by Kikuo Yamakawa (A Reprint Series of Books Relating to the English Language, vol.
14), Tokyo: Nan’un-do.
220
Indices
I Index of Personsonal Names
Aarsleff, Hans, 24, 35, 133 Daniel, Samuel, 114, 182

Addison, Joseph, 38, 39, 69, 70, 71, 78, 80, DeMaria, Robert, 10, 11, 12, 35, 36
106, 114, 124, 174, 187, 191 Downes, Rackstraw, 8, 13, 139
Allen, Harold, 13, 14 Drabble, Margaret, 39
Allestree, Richard, 39, 182, 183 Dryden, John, 42, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80, 105, 106,
Arbuthnot, John, 69, 71 114, 116, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,
Atkinson, A.D., 10, 11 141, 145, 146, 148, 160, 162, 163, 166,
Bacon, Francis, 69, 71, 78, 79, 88, 106, 114, 167, 170, 174, 180, 182, 184, 190, 201,
182 204
Barker, Edmund, 24 Fleeman, David, 14, 70, 71
Barlett, John, 59 Fowler, Francis, 105
Bately, Janet, 139, 140 Fowler, Henry, 105
Baugh, Albert, 23, 24, 55, 56, 80, 163 Franklin, Benjamin, 80, 131, 132, 207
Béjoint, Henri, 7 Freed, Lewis, 39, 69, 70, 72
Benson, Morton, 7, 58, 120 Friend, Joseph, 27, 29, 30, 31, 58, 59, 60, 61,
Bentham, Jeremy, 23 64, 65, 76, 80, 82
Berkeley, George, 39 Gay, John, 39, 72
Boethius, 174 Gibson, Martha, 64, 65
Boswell, James, 23 Godwin, William, 23
Boulton, James, 21, 76, 79 Grew, Nehemiah, 114, 187
Bournet, 174 Grimm, Jacob, 25
Boyle, Robert, 69, 114 Hamilton, Alexander, 80
Brewer, Charlotte, 14, 32 Hanmer, Thomas, 75, 105, 204
Broome, William, 114 Harris, John, 75, 105
Browne, Thomas, 69, 71, 73 Hartmann, Reinhard, 2, 4, 5, 173
Bryant, Margaret, 59 Harwood, Edward, 40
Budgell, Eustace, 39 Hayashi, Tetsuro, 7, 8, 12, 14, 36, 49, 50, 71
Burchfield, Robert, 70, 71 Hill, George, 10
Burnet, Thomas, 114 Hill, John, 75, 105, 204
Butler, Samuel, 114 Hooker, Richard, 69, 71, 114
Campbell, George, 163 Hulbert, James, 59
Cawdrey, Robert, 31 Ikeda, Makoto, 18, 19, 64
Chaucer, Geoffrey, 70, 175 Ikegami, Yoshihiko, 17, 19, 22, 129
Clarendon, Earl of (Edward Hyde), 163, 164 Irving, Washington, 80
Cleaveland, Moses (?), 80 James, Gregory, 4, 5, 173
Close, R., 180 Jespersen, Otto, 180, 210
Cowie, Anthony, 35 Johnson, Samuel (Jr.), 65
Craigie, William, 59 Johnston, William, 64, 65
Cubberley, Ellwood, 62, 63, 64 Jones, William, 23, 24, 25
221
Jonson, Ben, 114, 182 Pyles, Thomas, 19, 21, 63, 64, 80, 98, 99
K., J., 48 Quinlan, Maurice, 10, 11, 40
Kent, James (?), 80 Quirk, Randolph, 35, 127, 147, 157, 158, 171,
Kojima, Yoshiro, 32 180, 183, 186, 188, 210
Kolb, Gwin, 1, 7, 13, 36, 42, 49, 50, 52, 72, Raleigh, Walter, 71, 72
73 Ramsay, David, 80
Kolb, Ruth, 36, 72, 73 Read, Allen, 13, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 39, 57, 61,
Kozu, Haruo, 1 69, 70, 72, 76, 132, 133
Krapp, George, 27, 64, 65, 80 Reddick, Allen, 39
L’Estrange, Roger, 69 Reed, Joseph, 3, 20, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 58, 59,
Laird, Charlton, 17, 23, 24, 27, 61, 63 80, 84, 120, 123, 198
Landau, Sidney, 2, 17, 23, 24 Roe, Keith, 4
Leech, Geoffrey, 34 Rollins, Richard, 27, 56, 57, 58, 64
Leonard, Sterling, 5, 34, 35, 50, 53, 55, 129, Rymer, Thomas, 166
157, 163, 164, 195, 208 Schreyer, Rüdiger, 47
Locke, John, 69, 78, 79, 114, 182 Shakespeare, William, 13, 35, 69, 70, 71, 74,
Long, Ralph, 172 78, 79, 105, 106, 114, 135, 138, 148, 161,
Lowth, Robert, 50, 51, 53, 55, 129, 163 167, 170, 182, 187
Malone, Kemp, 55, 57 Sherbo, Arthur, 13
Mason, George, 80 Sidney, Philip, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 79, 198,
Mathews, Mitford, 27 201, 204
McAdam, Edward, 10, 11, 13, 14, 72 Siebert, Donald, 14
McArthur, Tom, 5, 34, 81 Simon, Irène, 139, 140
Metzger, Bruce, 40 Sledd, James, 1, 7, 13, 42, 49, 50, 52
Micklethwait, David, 25, 30, 31, 75, 76, 81, Smith, James, 59
83, 99 South, Robert, 69
Migliorini, Bruno, 43, 44 Spenser, Edmund, 69, 70, 78
Miller, Philip, 75, 105, 204 Starnes, De Witt, 1, 49, 50
Milne, George, 10, 11, 13, 14, 72 Steele, Richard, 38
Milton, John, 54, 69, 78, 79, 80, 114, 182 Stein, Gabriele, 31
Miyoshi, Kusujiro, 1, 48 Stenberg, Theodore, 30, 31, 39, 69
Morton, Herbert, 17, 58, 84 Struble, Mildred, 139
Murray, James, 12, 26, 27, 55, 173, 187 Sundby, Bertil, 34
Murray, Lindley, 19, 64, 163 Svartvik, Jan, 34
Nagashima, Daisuke, 14, 31, 32, 51, 76, 101 Swift, Jonathan, 35, 39, 43, 69, 70, 71, 78,
Noyes, Gertrude, 1, 49, 50 138, 161, 163, 164
Nuccorini, Stefania, 170, 210 Thomson, Charles, 40
Osselton, Noel, 14, 26, 72, 173, 187 Thornton, Richard, 59
Paine, Thomas, 23 Tillotson, John, 114
Perry, William, 64, 65 Tooke, Horne, 23, 24, 25, 132, 133
Phillips, John, 39 Trench, Richard, 36
Pickering, John, 59 Wakelin, Martyn, 9, 12
Pope, Alexander, 31, 39, 69, 71, 78, 80, 190 Walsh, Michael, 80
Priestley, Joseph, 1, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, Watt, Ian, 12
170, 206 Watts, Isaac, 69, 72
Prior, Matthew, 69, 71, 148 Weinbrot, Howard, 7, 14, 128
222
Wells, Ronald, 7, 14, 16, 21, 35, 60, 151 Withers, Phillip, 163
Wilkins, John, 114 Worcester, Joseph, 61, 64, 65, 206, 213
Wimsatt, William, 10, 11, 12, 35, 36, 43, 83, Yamakawa, Kikuo, 70, 71
139, 140
II Index of Words
abase, 81 discourage, 14 largely, 37 may, 184

about, 143, 144, 154 disgust, 164, 165 last, 95 me, 53
after, 142, 150, 152, dispatch, 26 latchet, 87 mechanics, 37
210 do, 189, 190, 191 late, 82 melter, 36
am, 192 dollar, 60 lately, 82 must, 186, 187
angry, 161 down, 151, 152 lay, 91, 95, 97 obey, 54
are, 193 fall, 109 lazuli, 73 of, 129, 130, 131,
ashamed, 161 fallen, 124 lazulite, 81 137
at, 138 for, 142, 144, 145 lean, 98 off, 151
averse, 163,164, 208 from, 132, 137 leap, 93 on, 136, 138, 151,
be, 189 garb, 38 leap-year, 73 152, 153
bear, 103, 110, 115, get, 116, 208 learn, 35, 96 outstare, 38
118 give, 109, 111, 114 leasing, 88 over, 142, 149, 150,
bearing, 125 given, 124 least, 38, 92 153, 154
been, 193 go, 103, 110, 113, leave, 90 pelting, 22
before, 137, 142, 119, 204 leet, 74 prefer, 162
153, 155 gone, 124 legioin, 90 quaint, 70
believe, 166 got, 124 lesser, 53 rote, 70
below, 155 have, 191, 192 lest, 92 run, 109, 117, 118
bore, 123 her, 53 let, 96 set, 112, 113, 114,
break, 103, 108, 117 herself, 53 leveling, 37 115
breaking, 125 himself, 53 leviathan, 87 shall, 175, 176, 177,
broke, 123 imp, 37 liable, 83 180
broken, 123, 124 impatient, 165 lien, 88 should, 54, 177, 179,
by, 145 in, 133 light, 95, 96 180, 212
came, 123 independent, 165 ligure, 87 sick, 169
can, 184, 185 intermarriage, 36 like, 88, 91 tackle, 70
cast, 109, 117 invest, 168 likewise, 92 take, 45, 104, 110,
casting, 125 is, 193, 194 live, 91 111, 207
cent, 60 lady-mantle, 73 lo, 91 through, 142
come, 109, 112, 113. laid, 87 long, 93 to, 137, 143, 149
123 lain, 87 longsuffering, 95 took, 124
coming, 125 laird, 81 loose, 93, 96, 97 was, 194
comment, 167 lamb, 90 lose, 98 went, 123
compunctious, 22 lament, 94 lovely, 94 were, 194
consist, 169 lamp, 82 loving-kindness, 90 wert, 194, 195, 209
corresponsive, 22 land, 82 lust, 91 will, 177, 178
could, 185 lapse, 83 mad, 166 with, 145
delighted, 169 larboard, 74 make, 103, 104, 110, would, 181, 182, 183
depend, 169 large, 82 116

Miyoshi - Johnson&#39;s and Webster&#39;s Verbal Examples, 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miyoshi - Johnson&#39;s and Webster&#39;s Verbal Examples, 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johnson's and Webster's

Max Niemeyer Verlag

Supplementary Volumes to the International Annual for Lexicography

Published in cooperation with the Dictionary Society of North America

Johnson’s and Webster’s

Max Niemeyer Verlag

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;

ISBN 978-3-484-39132-1 ISSN 0175-9264

) Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tbingen 2007

3: The Historical Background of Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries........................... 42

3.2.3 A Change in Priestley’s Opinion about Johnson’s Dictionary ................... 51

4: Johnson's and Webster's Usual Practices in Supplying Verbal Examples ..................... 67

5: Verbal Examples in Entries on Verbs of High Frequency and

5.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Use of Citations from Sources

6: Verbal Examples in Entries on Prepositions and Prepositional Adverbs..................... 127

7: Verbal Examples for Adjective-preposition and Verb-preposition Collocations........ 157

8: Verbal Examples Supplied for the Treatment

8.1.4 Johnson’s and Webster’s Verbal Examples in Sub-entries

9: Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 197

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 214

Table 1: Sources of Citations in Entries on Words for the Letter L

1. Abbreviations in the Text

AV The Authorized Version of the English Bible

4. Other Markings and Conventions

(Johnson 1755: n. pag. [2nd (par. 17) in the “Preface”])

1.1 The Background to the Project

1.2 Purposes of the Research

(1) Linguistic and Encyclopaedic

(2) Grammar and Usage

(4) Prescriptive and Descriptive

1.3 The Linguistic Foundation of the Thesis

1.4 Johnson’s View of Language and the English Language

1.4.1 Overview of Problems in the Analyses to Date

1.4.2 Formulation of Johnson’s View of Language

1.4.3 Problems in Investigating Johnson’s Verbal Examples to Date

DeMaria (1986:ix) even regarded Johnson’s Dictionary as a “disguised encyclopedia”.

The following is another example:

This statement was also supported by his discussion.

Wimsatt has also made the following remarks:

1.4.4 Generalization of the Analysis

1.5 Webster’s View of Language and the English Language

1.5.1 His Strong Language Awareness

Concerning Webster’s Dictionary, it is common knowledge that its encyclopaedic aspect

1.5.2 The Formulation of Webster’s View of Language

A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, Part II

1785: 2nd edition

How many are the parts of speech?

From the third edition, Ikeda quoted the following:

Into how many classes may words be distributed?

This opinion is based on the following assessment of the third edition:

1.5.3 Fundamentals of Webster’s View of Language as Revealed in His Dictionary

The following statement by Webster will clarify the point further:

This passage refers to Johnson’s inclusion of ‘barbarisms’ in his Dictionary. However,

1.5.4 Webster’s Study of Etymology

J: To DESPATCH. v.a. [depescher, French.]

1.5.5 Generalization of the Analysis

2.2 Selecting an Appropriate Edition of Johnson’s Dictionary

2.3 Adopting a Sampling Method

2.4 Adopting a Statistical Method in the Analysis of Selected Entries

2.5 Selecting Books on Grammar to Be Based on

2.6 Distinguishing Citations and Invented Examples

Bolingbroke argues most sophistically. Swift.

You taught me language, and my profit on’t

You taught me language, and my profit on’t

Miyoshi - Johnson's and Webster's Verbal Examples, 2007

Miyoshi - Johnson's and Webster's Verbal Examples, 2007

) Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tbingen 2007