There is no argument that Samuel Johnson had influence on society due to his work creating the first influential dictionary for the English language. His dictionary is one of the most important books ever written because it was widely successful and paved the way for future lexicographers who sought to accomplish even more with the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) than its predecessor. Johnson’s dictionary set the standard for what a proper English dictionary should be. English is not a fixed language because it is always growing, changing, and evolving. Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language contends that a dictionary must be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Samuel Johnson influenced the OED by demonstrating what to do and unintentionally demonstrating what not to do. Either way, his work as a lexicographer left a lasting impression on the dictionary world.

In the beginning of the writing process, Johnson struggled with the fact that English is ever-changing and therefore cannot be set in stone. He saw himself as a fixer of the English language, which is why he decided to write the dictionary in the first place. His goal for the dictionary was to “preserve the purity and ascertain the meaning of our English idiom” (Winchester 30). He wanted the dictionary to guard the English language against corruption and innovation. Johnson’s unrealistic need for perfection, he later realized, was in vain. He learned that a language as flexible as English cannot be purified and perfected, and his dictionary could not make it so. He realized that one cannot decide whether a word should or should not be used. As Johnson continued his work on the dictionary his mindset completely changed as his new aim for the dictionary was not “to form, but to register” the language (30). With this new approach, Johnson introduced a whole new way of thinking for creating a dictionary. Johnson now recorded the meaning of words as they had been used in the past and the many meanings they have been given. The words were not defined as Johnson felt they should be used, but they were recorded as how they were used. Still, Johnson still included definitions in his dictionary that proved to be controversial. His personal opinions shone through in some of his definitions such as oats in which he described as, “A grain which in England is generally given to horses, but which in Scotland feeds the people” (32). Despite his biases, Johnson was also known for writing words in action in his dictionary. He would take the best quotations that presented the proper usage of a word and included them with the definition of the word. One word that is found in Johnson’s dictionary is bedpresser with which Johnson uses a quote from Shakespeare to describe the word, “This sanguine coward, this bedpresser, this horse backbreaker, this huge hill of flesh.” This use of words in action carried into the OED, as lexicographers saw this as an essential way to describe the usage of a word.

Years later, James Murray vowed to achieve the perfection that Johnson was not able to accomplish in the Oxford English Dictionary. He believed that Johnson and his accomplices took the convenient path to finishing their dictionary. Murray wrote the preface for the OED with many of Johnson’s ideas as guiding principles. Johnson’s Preface to Volume I of his dictionary says:

When I had thus inquired into the original of words, I resolved to show likewise my attention to things; to pierce deep into every science, to enquire the nature of every substance of which I inserted the name, to limit every idea by definition strictly logical, and exhibit every production of art or nature in an accurate description, that my book might be in place of all other dictionaries whether appellative or technical. But these were the dreams of a poet doomed at last to wake a lexicographer. I soon found that is too late to look for instruments, when the work calls for execution, and that whatever abilities I brought to my task, with those I must finally perform it. (94-95)

Johnson’s principles would act as inspiration for Murray but also as a reminder to what Johnson was unable to accomplish, and Murray vowed to do the opposite. Johnson himself started writing the dictionary by reading books and literary works to find and define words rather than starting with the alphabet unlike the writers of the OED. As Johnson had references and sources from nobleman to commoners from all over, the writers of the OED had sources and references from all sorts of different places and people. This tactic that Johnson used to record the meaning of words was pivotal to the creation of the OED. This approach set the standard for every successful dictionary that followed Johnson’s. In his creation of the dictionary, Johnson focused exclusively on words found in literature; however, Johnson decided to only use literary references of works written after 1586. This meant that Johnson left out many important works of literature from his references, and was limited to a century and a half’s worth of works. Because of this and Johnson’s lack of resources, when Webster’s dictionary was completed it was almost double the size of Johnson’s. The OED also included entries from literary works as well as commoners and poor folk. This, however, caused the OED to receive criticism because some felt that inferior people were given too much ability to contribute to the dictionary. These critics felt that the lexicographers of the OED  should have focused on words from literary works and higher class authors and professionals as Samuel Johnson did. Webster did not feel this way about Johnson’s dictionary, though, and he declared in his preface that “the book’s solemn determination to fix and purify the language that Johnson — with his incision of vulgarisms and other low words — had in Webster’s view dared to chapel and to coarsen” (35).

One principle lexicographers often held was that a definition should not contain a word that is more complex than the word that is being defined. Johnson, however, did not uphold this principle in his own dictionary, making him subject to criticism. The writers of the Oxford English Dictionary strove to hold this principle, unlike Johnson, in their definitions. Although there are some exceptions, the newer lexicographers were able to keep their definitions simple enough. Because of Johnson’s work, the OED was a highly anticipated work that the lexicographers were able to perfect by building off of the work that Johnson had already done. Another characteristic that Murray and Johnson shared was their devout faith that they applied to their work as lexicographers. There is a strong correlation between language and truth. Being men of faith, both Johnson and Murray valued the notion of truth and strove to purify the English language in their respective dictionaries with true definitions.

While Johnson’s work did not contain as many words and definitions as the Oxford English Dictionary, Johnson did hold principles that the lexicographers of the OED applied to their work. He may not have accomplished perfection, but this only drove James Murray and his associates to do so in their work. It is interesting how what Johnson viewed as perfection and what James Murray viewed as perfection were different. Johnson’s perfection meant to write a prescriptive dictionary of how the English language should be used. He believed, at first, that the English language should not be a changing or evolving language, but it should be pure and immutable. He wanted his dictionary to be the catalyst for what the English language should be based on how it has been used by intellectuals and literary professionals. James Murray believed that in order to achieve perfection in the dictionary he must acknowledge how the language changes and grows. He believed the dictionary should be descriptive and flexible. Also, because of the fame that Johnson’s dictionary had reached, the OED was widely anticipated. Johnson’s dictionary was able to be found in most homes as often as the Bible itself, and the news of a bigger updated version sparked excitement, though the time it took to finish the OED caused this excitement to waver at times. The OED grew from the flaws and the success of Johnson’s dictionary. The newer lexicographers were able to learn from Johnson’s accomplishments and mistakes in order to create an even better dictionary. Johnson’s dictionary not only paved the way for the OED, but for all future dictionaries in their attempts to capture and describe the English language. 

(1). Winchester, Simon. The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary, 2003. Print.