View source for Webster's Third New International Dictionary

{{short description|Unabridged American English dictionary}}
{{Infobox book
| image = Webster's Third.jpeg
| language = English 
| country = 
| published = 1961
| caption = 
| preceded_by = {{noitalic|[[Webster's Dictionary#Webster's New International Dictionary (second edition, 1934)|''Webster's New International Dictionary'' (second edition, 1934)]]}}
| followed_by = 
| genre = [[Dictionary]]
| image_size = 250
}}
'''''Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged''''' (commonly known as ''Webster's Third'', or ''W3'') is an [[American English]]-language dictionary published in September 1961. It was edited by [[Philip Babcock Gove]] and a team of lexicographers who spent 757 [[Man-hour|editor-years]] and $3.5 million. The most recent printing has 2,816 pages, and as of 2005, it contained more than 476,000 vocabulary entries (including more than 100,000 new entries and as many new senses for entries carried over from previous editions), 500,000 definitions, 140,000 etymologies, 200,000 verbal illustrations, 350,000 example sentences, 3,000 pictorial illustrations and an 18,000-word Addenda section.

The final definition, [[Zyzzogeton]], was written on October 17, 1960; the final etymology was recorded on October 26; and the final pronunciation was transcribed on November 9. The final copy went to the typesetters, [[RR Donnelley|R. R. Donnelley]], on December 2. The book was printed by the [[Riverside Press]] in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]. The first edition had 2,726 pages (measuring {{cvt|9|in|mm|disp=or}} wide by {{cvt|13|in|mm|disp=or}} tall by {{cvt|3|in|mm|disp=or}} thick), weighed {{cvt|13+1/2|lb}}, and originally sold for $47.50 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|47.5|1961|r=0}}}} in {{Inflation-year|US}} dollars{{inflation-fn|US}}). The changes were the most radical in the history of the ''Unabridged''.

The dictionary was met with considerable criticism for its [[linguistic description|descriptive]] (rather than [[linguistic prescription|prescriptive]]) approach to language.<ref name=Skinner2009>{{Cite journal |url=https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2009/julyaugust/feature/ain%E2%80%99t-the-truth |title=Ain't That the Truth: Webster's Third: The Most Controversial Dictionary in the English Language |last= Skinner |first=David |author-link=David Skinner (journalist)|date=July–August 2009 |work= Humanities magazine|volume=30|issue=4|publisher= [[National Endowment for the Humanities]]|access-date= 2014-09-14}}</ref><ref>Herbert Charles Morton. ''The Story of Webster's Third: Philip Gove's Controversial Dictionary and its Critics'' (1995). p. 123.</ref>

== Deletions ==
Prior to ''Webster's Third'' the ''Unabridged'' had been expanded with each new edition, with minimal deletion. To make room for 100,000 new words, Gove now made sweeping deletions, dropping 250,000 entries. He eliminated the "nonlexical matter" that he felt belonged in an encyclopedia, including all names of people and places (which had filled two appendices). There were no more mythological, biblical, and fictional names, nor the names of buildings, historical events, or art works. Thirty picture plates were dropped. The rationale was that, while useful, these are not strictly about language. Gove justified the change by the company's publication of ''Webster's Biographical Dictionary'' in 1943 and ''[[Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary|Webster's Geographical Dictionary]]'' in 1949, and the fact that the topics removed could be found in encyclopedias.<ref>Morton (1995)</ref>

Also removed were words which had been virtually out of use for more than two hundred years (except those found in major literature such as Shakespeare), rare variants, reformed spellings, self-explanatory combination words, and other items considered of little value to the general reader. The number of small text illustrations was reduced, page size increased, and print size reduced by one-twelfth, from six point to agate (5.5 point) type. All this was considered necessary because of the large amount of new material, and ''Webster's Second'' had almost reached the limits of mechanical [[bookbinding]]. The fact that the new book had about 700 fewer pages was justified by the need to allow room for future additions.

In style and method, the dictionary bore little resemblance to earlier editions. Headwords (except for "God", [[acronym]]s pronounced as a string of letters, and, in the reprints, trademarks) were not capitalized. Instead of capitalizing "American", for example, the dictionary had labels next to the entries reading ''cap'' (for the noun) and ''usu cap'' (for the adjective). This allowed informative distinctions to be drawn: "gallic" is ''usu cap'' while "gallicism" is ''often cap'' and "gallicize" is ''sometimes cap''.

== Reception and criticisms ==
The reviews of the Third edition were highly favorable in Britain.<ref>Ronald A. Wells, ''Dictionaries and the Authoritarian Traditions: A Study in English Usage and Lexicongraphy'' (1973) p. 84</ref>

[[Robert L. Chapman|Robert Chapman]], a lexicographer, canvassed fellow lexicographers at [[Funk & Wagnalls]], who had used the new edition daily for three years. The consensus held that the Third was a "marvelous achievement, a monument of scholarship and accuracy". They did come up with some specific criticisms, including typographic unattractiveness (they claimed the type is too small and hard to read); non-use of capital letters (only "God" is capitalized; the goal was to save space); excessive use of citations, giving misspellings as legitimate variants, dropping too many obsolete words, the lack of usage labels, and deliberate omission of biographical and geographical entries. Chapman concluded that the "cranks and intransigents who advise us to hang on to the NID 2 are plain fools who deny themselves the riches of a great book".<ref>Robert L. Chapman, "A Working Lexicographer Appraises ''Webster's Third New International Dictionary''", ''American Speech,'' October 1967, Vol. 42 Issue 3, pp. 202–210, quotes on p. 210</ref>

This dictionary became preferred as a backup source by two influential style guides in the United States, although each one directs writers to go first to other, shorter dictionaries. ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', followed by many book publishers and magazines in the United States, recommends ''Webster's Third'', along with ''[[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]]'' for "general matters of spelling", and the style book "normally opts for" the first spelling listed (with the ''Collegiate'' taking precedence over ''Webster's Third'' because it "represents the latest research").<ref name="cms15">''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', 15th edition, New York and London: University of Chicago Press, 2003, Chapter 7: "Spelling, Distinctive Treatment of Words, and Compounds", Section 7.1 "Introduction", p. 278</ref> ''[[The Associated Press Stylebook]]'', used by most newspapers in the United States, refers readers to ''W3'' "if there is no listing in either this book or ''[[Webster's New World Dictionary|Webster's New World]]''".<ref>Goldstein, Norm, editor, ''[[Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual]]'', New York: Perseus Books, 1998, "dictionaries" entry, p. 61</ref>

=== Permissiveness ===
In the early 1960s, ''Webster's Third'' came under attack for its "permissiveness" and its failure to tell people what proper English was. It was an early conflict in the [[culture war]]s, as conservatives detected yet another symbol of the permissiveness of society as a whole, and the decline of authority represented by the ''Second Edition''.<ref>John P. Davies, ''DOA: education in the electronic culture'' (2003) p. 16</ref> As historian Herbert Morton explained,  "''Webster's Second'' was more than respected. It was accepted as the ultimate authority on meaning and usage and its preeminence was virtually unchallenged in the United States. It did not provoke controversies, it settled them." Critics charged that ''Webster's Third'' was reluctant to defend standard English, for example eliminating the labels "colloquial", "correct", "incorrect", "proper", "improper", "erroneous", "humorous", "jocular", "poetic", and "contemptuous", among others.<ref>Jack Lynch, ''The Lexicographer's Dilemma: The Evolution of "Proper" English from Shakespeare to South Park'' (2009)</ref>

Gove's stance was an exemplar of [[descriptivist linguistics]]: describing language as it is or has been used. As David M. Glixon put it in the ''[[Saturday Review (U.S. magazine)|Saturday Review]]'': "Having descended from God's throne of supreme authority, the Merriam folks are now seated around the city desk, recording like mad."<ref>Herbert C. Morton, ''The Story of Webster's Third: Philip Gove's Controversial Dictionary and its Critics'' (1995), p. 172</ref> [[Jacques Barzun]] said this stance made ''Webster's Third'' "the longest political pamphlet ever put together by a party", done with "a dogma that far transcends the limits of lexicography".<ref>Barzun, ''The American Scholar'' (1962), Volume 32, p. 176</ref>

In 1962, two professors of English<!--not "English professors", which implies their nationality, not what's meant here--> James Sledd (Northwestern) and Wilma R. Ebbitt (University of Chicago), published a "casebook" that compiles more than sixty lay and expert contributions to this controversy.<ref>James Sledd and Wilma R. Ebbitt, ''Dictionaries and That Dictionary: A Casebook on the Aims of Lexicographers and the Targets of Reviewers'' (Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1962).</ref>  In it, Sledd was drawn into debate with [[Dwight Macdonald]], one of the most prominent critics of the dictionary, who in the pages of ''[[The New Yorker]]'' (March 10, 1962) had accused its makers of having "untuned the string, made a sop of the solid structure of English"; Macdonald held that the dictionary was an important indicator of "the changes in our cultural climate".<ref>{{cite book |last=Kendall |first=Joshua |title=The Forgotten Founding Father: Noah Webster's Obsession and the Creation of an American Culture |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gOFYHKYcNYcC&pg=PT287 |year=2011 |publisher=Penguin |page=287}}</ref>

=== Treatment of the contraction 'Ain't' ===
The dictionary's treatment of '[[ain't]]' was subject to particular scorn,<ref name=Skinner2009 /> since it replaced the previous entry listing the term as "illiterate" with one merely regarding it as [[nonstandard]]. The entry for "ain't" seemed to condone its use, saying "though disapproved by many and more common in less educated speech, used orally in most parts of the U. S. by many cultivated speakers esp. in the phrase ''ain't I''". ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'' of Toronto editorialized: "a dictionary's embrace of the word 'ain't' will comfort the ignorant, confer approval upon the mediocre, and subtly imply that proper English is the tool of only the snob".<ref>Morton p. 157.</ref> ''[[The New York Times]]'' editorialized that "Webster's has, it is apparent, surrendered to the permissive school that has been busily extending its beachhead in English instruction in the schools ... reinforced the notion that good English is whatever is popular" and "can only accelerate the deterioration" of the English language.<ref>''The New York Times'', October 12, 1961.</ref>{{Full citation needed|date=September 2019}}  The ''Times''{{'}} widely respected [[Theodore M. Bernstein]], its in-house style authority and a professor of journalism at Columbia University, reported that most of the newspaper's editors decided to continue to use the ''Webster's Second''.<ref>Wells, ''Dictionaries and the Authoritarian Traditions: A Study in English Usage and Lexicongraphy'' (1973) p. 79.</ref> [[Garry Wills]] in the ''[[National Review]]'' opined that the new dictionary "has all the modern virtues. It is big, expensive, and ugly. It should be a great success."<ref>Morton p. 192.</ref> ''[[The New Yorker]]'' referenced the controversy with a cartoon by [[Alan Dunn (cartoonist)|Alan Dunn]] showing a receptionist at the dictionary's office telling a visitor "Sorry. Dr. Gove ain't in."<ref>''The New Yorker'', March 24, 1962, p. 30.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.art.com/products/p15528350636-sa-i6948287/alan-dunn-sorry-dr-gove-ain-t-in-new-yorker-cartoon.htm|title="Sorry. Dr. Gove ain't in." - New Yorker Cartoon|work=Art.com}}</ref>

Criticism of the dictionary spurred the creation of ''[[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]]'', where 500 usage notes were determined by a panel of expert writers. The editor, however, often ignored their advice.<ref>John Ottenhoff, "The Perils of Prescriptivism: Usage Notes and the ''American Heritage Dictionary''". ''American Speech'', Fall 1996, vol. 71, issue 3, pp. 272–285.</ref>

== Revisions and updates ==
Since the 1961 publication of the ''Third'', [[Merriam-Webster]] has reprinted the main text of the dictionary with only minor corrections. To add new words, they created an ''Addenda Section'' in 1966, included in the front matter, which was expanded in 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1993, and 2002. However, the rate of additions has been much slower than it had been throughout the previous hundred years.

Following the purchase of Merriam-Webster by [[Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]] in 1964, a three-volume version was issued for many years as a supplement to the encyclopedia. At the end of volume three, this edition included the ''Britannica World Language Dictionary'', 474 pages of translations between English and French, German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, and Yiddish.

A CD-ROM version of the complete text, with thousands of additional new words and definitions from the "addenda", was published by Merriam-Webster in 2000, and is often packaged with the print edition.

The Merriam-Webster staff has been working on a fourth edition (''W4'') of the ''Unabridged'' since 2008, but a publication date has not been set. It is now unlikely that Merriam-Webster will ever publish a print version of ''W4'' due to its unprecedented length.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2015/01/merriam_webster_dictionary_what_should_an_online_dictionary_look_like.html|title=The Definition of a Dictionary|last=Fatsis|first=Stefan|work=[[Slate (website)|Slate]] |date=January 12, 2015|access-date=April 25, 2015}}</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* {{Cite book |editor-first=Philip B. |editor-last=Gove  |title=Webster's Third New International Dictionary |publisher=G. & C. Merriam |year=1961 }}
* {{Cite book |first=Herbert C. |last=Morton |title=The Story of ''Webster's Third'': Philip Gove's Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics |location=Cambridge and New York |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=1994 |isbn=0-521-46146-4 }}
* {{Cite book |last=Skinner |first=David |title=The Story of Ain't: America, Its Language, and the Most Controversial Dictionary Ever Published |location=New York |publisher=HarperCollins |year=2012 |isbn=0-0620-2746-8 }}
* {{Cite book |editor1-first=James |editor1-last=Sledd |editor2-first=Wilma R. |editor2-last=Ebbit |title=Dictionaries and ''That'' Dictionary |location=Chicago |publisher=Scott Foresman |year=1962 }}

==External links==
*[https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.WEBSTERS Webster's Third New International Dictionary Clippings 1961–1964] at the [https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/scrc/ University of Chicago Special Collections Research Center]

{{Dictionaries of English}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:1961 non-fiction books]]
[[Category:English dictionaries]]
[[Category:Books about American English]]