Disclaimer: If you’re not into
extreme things like dictionaries, obscure words and timed challenges then I
suggest you stop reading now.
For those of you that have decided
to stick around, you’re in for a treat. I was recently forced to buy a physical
copy of the Macquarie Concise Dictionary for a university subject I’m taking. You can imagine
how unhappy I was to be spending money on what I viewed as an unnecessary lump
of pulp, since all the information contained within (and much, much more) is
available (for free) online. I was even more unhappy when I realised that
dictionaries come in editions (because language evolves, forsooth!) and so the
book I bought was only going to be unnecessary for a couple of years before it
became unnecessary and outdated. Combine all this with the inevitable crushed
vertebrae that I’m guaranteed to sustain from carrying it in my backpack to class and
you’ll understand that my new dictionary and I were off to a shaky start.
Partly in the interest of science—but mostly in a petty attempt to validate my theories on the pointlessness of
paper dictionaries—I decided to conduct a quick test to see how much quicker using an online
dictionary really was, and if there were any benefits of
using a paper dictionary at all. I used a generator to create two lists of ten random words, one set of which I would look up via the Macquarie
Online dictionary, the other via my new Macquarie Concise.
I’d highly recommend not stopping
to think too long about the fact that I actually spent ten minutes of my life
in a dimly lit room conducting this test, because frankly the whole thing is
kind of weird and pathetic, and if you overthink it then you’ll feel sad for
me, and the last thing weird pathetic people like me need is your pity, thank you very much.
On to the science. I vaguely recall
learning how to structure a proper report in Year 8 and so I will proceed with the
time honoured scientific tradition of winging things based on half-remembered
facts.
Aim: To see if using an online dictionary is quicker, more efficient,
and generally better than a paper dictionary.
Hypothesis: The online dictionary will be significantly quicker.
Method: I already outlined the method above, but for posterity’s
sake here are the two sets of words:
Online: tiara, meal, ova, tidied, nab, kilogram, splint, began, laser, award
Paper: bomb, outcrop, smoke,
era, noble, muscle, luncheon, ape, clean, finance
Results:
Online: 1 minute 26 seconds
Paper: 3 minutes 18 seconds
Paper: 3 minutes 18 seconds
Using the online version was therefore
more than twice as fast as using the paper version.
Discussion: At first I thought a minute or two didn’t seem like
much of a difference, but it’s the relative difference between the two that
count. If I were to extrapolate these results over the course of a lifetime I
would end up spending extra years
looking things up in a paper dictionary as opposed to online. You may think this wouldn't matter to somebody who went to the trouble of conducting this test in the first place, but even I have to draw the line somewhere.
It’s worth mentioning that using
the paper dictionary quickly highlighted how unfamiliar I am with the order
of the English alphabet. I actually had to quickly sing the song in my head
every time I got to certain tricky spots such as ‘l-m-n-o-p’ and ‘q-r-s-t-u-v’.
If somebody would like to comment and reassure me that they have a similar
experience when using a dictionary that would be great, because otherwise I am
genuinely worried that I have a learning disability which was never properly
addressed when I was a child and has since been shoddily covered up with more
impressive—but frankly less fundamentally important—topics like the Russian revolution and Kuhn’s paradigm theory.
Now, for the unexpected shock,
which will no doubt have people writing angry emails to me demanding I retract
my words (actually, I’m not going to pretend I get
emails about this blog, because nobody has ever emailed me about it. I really appreciate you reading
it though, and that means more to me than a thousand angry emails ever could). Despite my initial hatred for it, and the fact that it’s really inefficient, I found that I enjoyed using the paper dictionary.
Before you accuse me of being a Luddite (I think I accuse myself of being a Luddite much
more than anybody ever has or ever will. I have a blog called ‘the Digital
Printing Press’, for god’s sake) I’d like you to hear me out.
First of all, there is something to
be said for the actual physical presence of
the dictionary. Stephen King observed that words have
weight and my Macquarie—containing all the words—naturally has a lot of weight, both figuratively and literally.* As mentioned, this
is a hindrance when toting it around (which is why ‘toting a dictionary’ is a
verb-noun combination used about as often as ‘milking a gnat’) but kind of
satisfying when it’s sitting on your desk. The thing just appears definitive
and authoritative.
Speaking of authoritative, another
nice thing about owning a dictionary is that you know, to a reasonable extent,
that the information contained within it is reliable and consistent. I shudder
to think how much work must go in to actually writing/editing a dictionary, and
because of this I’m sure that the information contained within is taken very seriously by serious people in
tweed jackets and plaid skirts. Contrast this with the compilers of online
dictionaries, whom I imagine to be croc-wearing, Hackey sack-kicking layabouts
much more interested in gaining revenue from ad click-throughs than the
accuracy of their lexicography.
The issue of consistency and accuracy is particularly
important when you’re talking about words used in a particular region, like
Australian English. I personally would not have a clue if ‘dictionary.com’ or
‘thefreedictionary.com’ is better for Australian users, and trying to find out
this information on their websites was tricky and seemed to defeat the whole
purpose of quick and easy service. Granted, the Macquarie dictionary is
available at a price online (I conducted the test under a free trial subscription) and it has the benefit of being updated
constantly, but if you’re the sort of person who pays for an online dictionary
subscription then I imagine you’re also the sort of person who likes to have a dictionary sitting on your bookshelf anyway. In short, I suppose online dictionaries are generally good
for quick, casual use, but if you’re serious about words then it’s hard to go
past the authority and consistency of an actual book.
Another reason I liked the paper format was that it had great hidden benefits. The nature of flipping
through pages when you’re using the dictionary means that you often stumble
across great words accidentally. During the course of the challenge the word
‘feneckapants’ caught my eye. According to the Macquarie, it is ‘a colloquial
term of endearment, used especially with children’, but I would imagine that if
you try and call a child a ‘feneckapants’ you’re in for some distressed looks
from the children’s parents, not to mention the child itself. I actually don’t
think the meaning of feneckapants is as important as just seeing the actual combination of
letters that make up the word so close together. It’s as if all the cool, edgy
letters of the English alphabet (like f, a, k and p) have gotten together and
formed a sort of supergroup. These are the sort of opportunistic discoveries that online
dictionaries just can't provide.
I’m surprised (no doubt you are
too) that I’ve been able to wring a thousand words out of dictionary usage
so I will wrap things up here, and leave you with the thought that anybody who
uses a paper dictionary may feel good doing it, but they ultimately risk being
called an antiquated pretentious idiot. Personally I think this is a little
unfair, as I take umbrage at being called ‘antiquated’.
*Okay, so maybe not all the words because I actually have the ‘concise’
version, but the title is really just an in-joke by lexicographers who no doubt
think it is hilarious to label a 1,500 page tome ‘concise’.
Ammon Shea
ReplyDeleteHi there
ReplyDeleteI know this is a bit bold but i recently read your work in the latest Voice works and i really liked it. I'm the editor of a zine that circulates around melbourne that publishes essays about creativity and the issues around it. I'd like to ask if you'd like to contribute something for the next issue?
www.criterionpublication.com
If you are, please let me know
criterionmagazine@live.com
Cheers
Yalei Wang