Are Dictionaries Becoming Obsolete?

进入了谷歌时代，我们还需要字典吗？毕竟，字典是字典编纂者编写的有关词汇用法和意义的庞大的数据库。不过，谷歌如今已成为了我们的释义数据库。想知道如何拼写assiduous吗？如果输入错误，谷歌会做出反应，友好地提示你：是不是要找：assiduous？是的，谷歌，我是要找这个词。Getty Images接下来，谷歌会列出一系列定义assiduous的网站链接。不需要点击其中任何一个网站，每个网站下的两句摘要就足以让我了解这个词的含义：“努力工作”和“勤奋”。还是不满意？好吧，点击谷歌“新闻”标签，你会被带入新闻内容中出现assiduous一词的链接页中。转眼间，就能看到例句和用法示例。《大西洋月刊》（The Atlantic）杂志资深语言专栏作家沃拉夫(Barbara Wallraff)说，你和我现在都可以成为自己的字典编纂者了。我们不需要字典。当然，字典仍然大有用武之地。在线字典提供了谷歌上弹出来的大多数定义链接。字典依然擅长于不常用的用法和词源。字典也可以仲裁拼字游戏或午夜谈话中出现的争执。但是，字典在许多方面也不如人意。它们会提出一堆解释让读者自己判断哪个是正确的，令人大为光火。字典更新释义的速度也不够快。而且由于印刷版字典在空间上的局限，许多字典的定义非常简练，常常于事无补。以往遇到过对calumnious（污蔑的）这样一个定义：“涉及或使用诬蔑的”。除了自负的《牛津英语词典》之外，很少有字典能提供足够的用法示例。兰登书屋(Random House)字典部门前主编现任Copyediting通讯编辑的尼古拉斯(Wendalyn Nichols)说，每当你向字典中添加一个新词时，你都要减去点东西，所以你就只能裁减例句。甚至是《牛津英语词典》提供的也多是19世纪到20世纪那些比较老的例句。没有相关的例句，字典的意义就大打折扣。乔治亚大学语言学教授麦克里(Don R. McCreary)说，他的研究表明，当能够提供几个例句时，学生对字典中定义的理解程度就会大大提高。在网上，情况也没有好到哪去。大多数免费字典网站同其印刷版一样，包含的同样都是各种定义，而缺乏例句。网上的定义通常也是来自绝版的旧字典，因此往往已经过时。而且，其中还充斥着花花绿绿的减肥广告。如今是应该创建一种新的字典模式了。毕竟，在这个短信博客和微博客的时代，我们都是专业写手。我们需要一个同我们对语言的使用一样动感的字典，一本知道“optics（光学）”已经不再仅是科学词汇，而已具有政治含义的字典。尽管谷歌在聚合释义方面做得不错，但我更希望能有一些专家学者给新的释义数据库提供权威有份量的内容。以“widget”（小工具）这个词为例，如果你在谷歌上快速搜索这个词，排在最前面的链接是苹果(Apple)和雅虎(Yahoo)的工具指引，随后则是维基百科(Wikipedia)。即便不打开这些链接，你也能轻松猜到，这个词如今指的是网站上的某种附加功能。用现在对这个词的理解对比下2009版Merriam-Webster词典（免费网络版或印刷版）里面的解释：“为了假设例子所考虑的未标题文章“。什么？这部字典也没有提供例句来解释一下。2009版American Heritage词典（你可以通过Dictionary.com网站免费查阅）的解释较为贴近当前。该字典对widget的解释是“一个运行一些简单功能的程序，例如提供天气预报或股票报价，可以通过电脑桌面网页手机或订阅电视服务使用”。不过，同样没有提供例句。拥有295年历史的《牛津英语词典》(Oxford English Dictionary)网络版的情况更为糟糕。这个词条的落款是“2003年11月添加的暂定解释”，其解释如下：“电脑屏幕上的一个视觉符号；图形用户界面上的的一个图形设备；启动此类设备时相关操作涉及的软件和数据，尤其是共同组成一个工具。”共同组成一个工具？过去的6年时间，《牛津英语词典》的编辑们难道都没有机会更新一下这绕口的解释？最后，我转向一个新的网络词典Wordnik。关于“widget”一词的解释同样也是过时的。不过，在相关解释的下面是一串来自于Twitter和一些科技刊物的例句，非常好地诠释了这个词语的含义和当前用途。真是很棒！Wordnik是由前《新牛津美语词典》(New Oxford American Dictionary)的前主编麦克基恩(Erin McKean)推出的。该网站提供了来自新旧各个词典的解释，但其真正优势在于摘自从Twitter到报纸文章等诸多来源的详实例句。Wordnik甚至会从图片网站Flickr里面引用图片来解释词语。麦克基恩精准地提炼了我关于词典的问题。她表示，问题在于现在大家都成为了专业的业余写作者，而词典对我们来说不够出色。麦克基恩说，现在你可以买到一部几乎和专业摄像机一样好的便携式摄像机。你可以购买用于餐馆的烹调设备在家中享受烹饪。但我们却还没有一个同时适用于专业和业余版本的词典。Wordnik是朝着为现代墨客定制词典迈出的良好第一步，但如果没有及时更新的解释，该网站实际上只是一个更好的谷歌例句搜索引擎罢了。我仍然希望有一部可以令谷歌望尘莫及的好词典。Julia Angwin（更新完成）相关阅读谷歌美国电子书和解协议将不包括仍在售的欧洲图书 2009-09-08谷歌就电子图书纠纷向欧洲出版商和作者让步 2009-09-07李开复辞职彰显谷歌中国征途坎坷 2009-09-07谷歌中国新管理结构与全球管理架构一致 2009-09-07意大利反垄断机构对谷歌涉嫌滥用市场支配地位展开调查 2009-09-04


Do we still need dictionaries in the age of Google?Dictionaries are, after all, giant databases of words compiled by lexicographers who investigate word usages and meanings.These days, however, Google is our database of meaning. Want to know how to spell assiduous? Type it incorrectly and Google will reply, in its kind-hearted way: 'Did you mean: assiduous'? Why yes, Google, I did.Google then spits out a bunch of links to Web definitions for assiduous. Without clicking on any of them, the two-sentence summaries below each link give me enough to get a sense of the word: 'hard working,' and 'diligent.'Still not satisfied? Fine, click on the Google 'News' tab   and you will be directed to a page of links where the word assiduous appears in news stories. Presto, sample sentences and usage examples.'You and I can be our own lexicographers now,' says Barbara Wallraff, the longtime language columnist for The Atlantic magazine. 'We don't need dictionaries.'Of course, there is plenty that dictionaries still do well. Online dictionaries provide most of the definition links that pop up in Google. Dictionaries are still good for obscure usages and etymologies. Dictionaries also can arbitrate disputes that arise during a game of Scrabble or late-night conversations.But dictionaries have also failed us in many ways. They infuriate word sticklers by presenting a variety of usages and leaving the reader to decide which is correct. Dictionaries fail to update meanings often enough. And due to space constraints in the print editions, many dictionary definitions are so concise as to be unhelpful. Ever run into a definition like this one for calumnious: 'of, involving, or using calumny'?Few dictionaries   other than the vaunted Oxford English Dictionary   provide enough usage examples. 'Every time you add a new word to the dictionary, you have to subtract something, so you cut out example sentences,' says Wendalyn Nichols, former editor-in-chief of the Random House dictionary division who is now the editor of Copyediting newsletter. And even the OED provides mostly historical examples from the 1800s and 1900s.Without relevant example sentences, dictionaries are crippled. Don R. McCreary, a linguistics professor at the University of Georgia, says that his studies show that student comprehension of dictionary definitions improves dramatically when multiple example sentences are provided.Online, the situation is no better. Most free dictionary sites contain the same crammed definitions and lack of example sentences as their print cousins. Online definitions are also usually from older, out-of-print dictionaries   and thus are often outdated. What's more, they are festooned with blinking flat-belly advertisements.It's time for a new model for dictionaries. After all, we are all professional writers in this era of texting, blogging and tweeting. We need a dictionary that is as dynamic as our use of the language; a dictionary that knows that the word 'optics' has moved beyond just science to have a role in politics. And although Google is doing a pretty good job aggregating meanings, I would prefer some human experts to give authority and heft to a new database of meaning.Consider the word 'widget.' A quick Google search is topped by links to Apple and Yahoo widget directories, followed by Wikipedia. Even without opening any of the links, it's easy to surmise that a widget is currently used to describe some kind of techy add-on feature for Web sites.Compare that bit of knowledge to what you get from 2009 edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary (the free online version or the offline print version): 'an unnamed article considered for purposes of hypothetical example.' Huh? The dictionary provides no example sentences to illuminate that bit of prose.The 2009 American Heritage (which can be found for free mid-way down the page on Dictionary.com   good luck finding it) is more up-to-date. Its definition 3b for widget is 'a program that performs some simple function, such as providing a weather report or stock quote, and can be accessed from a computer desktop, webpage, mobile phone or subscription television service.' But, again, no example sentences are provided.Even worse was the definition from the $295-a-year online edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. The definition, boldy dated as a 'draft addition november 2003': 'A visual symbol on a computer screen; a graphical device in a graphical user interface; the software and data involved when the operations represented by such a device are invoked, esp. regarded as jointly constituting a tool.'Jointly constituting a tool? In the past six years, the OED editors had no chance to update that mouthful of gobbledy-gook?Finally, I turned to a new online dictionary, Wordnik. The widget definitions were equally outdated. But right next to them were a bunch of example sentences from Twitter and some technology publications that nicely illustrated widget's meaning and current usage. Bravo!Launched by Erin McKean, former editor in chief of the New Oxford American Dictionary, Wordnik offers definitions from dictionaries old and new, but its real advantage is its trove of example sentences pulled from sources ranging from Twitter to newspaper articles. It even pulls photos from Flickr to illustrate words.Ms. McKean nicely distills my problem with dictionaries: she says the problem is that dictionaries aren't good enough for the professional-amateur writers that we've all become.'You can buy a camcorder that is almost as good as a professional video recorder. You can buy cooking equipment for your home that could be used in any restaurant,' she says. 'We don't have the pro-am version of a dictionary yet.'Wordnik is a good first step towards a dictionary for the modern wordsmith, but without up-to-date definitions it's really just a better Google search for example sentences. I am still hoping for a dictionary that will leave Google in the dust.Julia Angwin