Words culled from children's dictionary in the name of diversity

Status
Not open for further replies.

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
I was horrified to read this article today.

Oxford University Press has removed words like "aisle", "bishop", "chapel", "empire" and "monarch" from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like "blog", "broadband" and "celebrity". Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled.
The publisher claims the changes have been made to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society.
This is hard to believe. Isn't a dictionary about looking up words you don't know? Why would a modern child want to look up "celebrity"? If they come across a word like "chapel" in a book (do they even read any more?) what are they to do?

I am a great proponent of diversty and multiculturalism but this is just grotesque. If these words (and their meanings) are dying then all the more reason to save them! To lose them would be to carve a huge vacuum into Britain's soul.

The comments trail has some interesting observations, for instance:
An illuminating example of "new" International English that resembles Orwell's warnings about "Newspeak."

Some folks, especially in ivory towers, seem to confuse cultural heritage with original sin.
Examples of words removed:

Acorn, bacon, beech, beetroot, blackberry, blacksmith, bloom, bluebell, bramble, buttercup, canary, catkin, clover, dandelion,

And words added:

Celebrity, tolerant, vandalism, negotiate, interdependent, creep, conflict, EU, drought, compulsory, cope, dyslexic, MP3.


What do you think? Cultural vandalism, or reality?
 
Last edited:

Nakhlasmoke

yes
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
11,792
Reaction score
4,698
Location
Wicked Little Town
Website
cathellisen.com
Oh my word. That is so dumb.

I agree 100% with you, Aruna. Dictionaries are to find the meanings of the words you don't know...so excising those that are not in regular use seems counter-productive.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Going overboard like this is likely to do far more harm to the idea of diversity than good. The idea should be to respect other faiths and cultures, not ban the traditional one!
It doesn't help that the editor of this dictionary has an Indian name. Many of the commentors are coming out strong with the idea that "they're" destroying our culture.
 
Last edited:

qwerty

exiled Brit
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
222
Location
Burgundy
Oh brilliant - the names of flora and fauna have been removed because of the decrease in the numbers of kids who live in semi-rural environments and see the seasons!

So they don't need to know what an otter or an acorn is? However, it's apparently important for them to know the definition of bungee jumping!

My guess is that they don't teach Britain's history anymore, so the backbone on which British society was built can go out of the window along with words like "decade". Sure, Britain is multi-cultural nowadays, but why isn't it important for kids from other cultures and parts of the world to have some historic knowledge of the country that has become their home?
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
Why does this surprise you? Any of you?

There are words you aren't even allowed to say anywhere in our society, and God (and man on earth) damn you if you think them or write them -- unless you're a certain color, then it's ok. Well, it's not ok. But it's allowed.

There are words that aren't allowed on television, or radio.

There are words that aren't allowed on this forum.

Is it a surprise, then, that words are removed from dictionaries? How better to help prepare children for words that "aren't proper" for daily conversation than to not have to bother with teaching them those words at all?

I don't like this system. I don't espouse this system. But I live within it, and I have to abide by it if I'm to survive within it.

Be surprised by it? Not me.
 

LisaHy

It's probably a tumour
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
198
Reaction score
41
Location
Gold Coast, Aus
And words added:

Celebrity, tolerant, vandalism, negotiate, interdependent, creep, conflict, EU, drought, compulsory, cope, dyslexic, MP3.

While I do agree that the subtraction of words is down right pathetic, I also have to wonder why (with the exception of EU and MP3) these words weren't in there in the first place...

Cheers, Lisa.
 

Beach Bunny

The Provocative One
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
3,146
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Where angels fear to tread
Oxford University Press has removed words like "aisle", "bishop", "chapel", "empire" and "monarch" from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like "blog", "broadband" and "celebrity".
I've bolded "Junior Dictionary" here because I think that is an important distinction. They aren't removing these words from "the" dictionary or "the unabridged" dictionary, they are removing them from the "Junior" dictionary. If I remember correctly a "junior" dictionary is a very slim volume and thus the number of words that can be included is a lot smaller than in a regular-sized dictionary much less an unabridged dictionary. My guess is that Oxford University Press revised the dictionary to put in the words that a child most likely would need to look up.

My 77 year old mother can tell a child what a "chapel" is, she couldn't tell them what "broadband" or a "blog" is. And if she told that child what she used to tell me when she didn't know the definition of a word, "go look it up in the dictionary", then they would have been out of luck, because the word wouldn't have been there. :)

:Shrug:
 

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
18,797
Reaction score
4,590
Location
Caledonia
Website
derekpaterson.net
Isn't a children's dictionary by definition a short collection of words most likely to be encountered in life? A primer, rather than a be-all source of knowledge.

Some new, relevant words get added, with the result that some words get knocked out to keep the dictionary short. What's the big deal?

If they need to learn more words, the bigger books are always there. Hell, they should be encouraged to seek the bigger books out anyway, and this is one way of ensuring this happens. It's not as if the missing words have been deleted from the language.

ETA: dammit, cross-posted with Beach Bunny!

-Derek
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
I've bolded "Junior Dictionary" here because I think that is an important distinction. They aren't removing these words from "the" dictionary or "the unabridged" dictionary, they are removing them from the "Junior" dictionary. If I remember correctly a "junior" dictionary is a very slim volume and thus the number of words that can be included is a lot smaller than in a regular-sized dictionary much less an unabridged dictionary. My guess is that Oxford University Press revised the dictionary to put in the words that a child most likely would need to look up.

My 77 year old mother can tell a child what a "chapel" is, she couldn't tell them what "broadband" or a "blog" is. And if she told that child what she used to tell me when she didn't know the definition of a word, "go look it up in the dictionary", then they would have been out of luck, because the word wouldn't have been there. :)

:Shrug:

But what's the point of having a Junior Dictionary full of words children are already familiar with, words they hear every day such as broadband and ipod, while leaving out exactly those words they might come across in books and need to look up? That defeats the very purpose of a dictionary - even a children's dictionary.

Yes, our vocabulary has expanded so I guess children's dictionaries need to get bigger.
It would not even matter so much were it not for the fact that this is endemic of British society today; what I see is a determined effort to wipe out every tradition, everything "old", in favour of some shallow cultural multicultural brew. I find the editor's words very telling:
We are also much more multicultural. People don't go to Church as often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism, which is why some words such as "Pentecost" or "Whitsun" would have been in 20 years ago but not now.
So I am asking: are words such as Ramadan, mosque, imam and Diwali in the dictionary? If so, then we are indeed seeing something more than just words removed for practicality.
0
 

qwerty

exiled Brit
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
222
Location
Burgundy
aruna, I see your point.

I noticed that, along with other words pertaining to Christmas, the word "carol" has been removed. Yet I understand that Brit kids in Brit schools are learning songs in Urdu or whatever. I just don't get this. Families have come from different cultures and countries to live in Britain. Why is it that it's Brit nationals who have to adapt rather than the other way round?

Britain has a monarch. She is also the head of her country's religion - which happens to be a Christian religion. But, in order to accomodate an ever growing multi-cultural society, words relating to Christianity and monarchy are removed from a dictionery. Those basic things are part of Britain's heritage, but they are getting lost.

If you choose to live in a country that is not your own, it should be expected that you adapt to that country's ways. I've lived in two Islamic states because of my husband's employment. It would not have crossed my mind to go out in public with my shoulders uncovered, or to even drink from a water bottle in public during Ramadan. To me, this is about respect for the culture of the country you live in.
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Is it a surprise, then, that words are removed from dictionaries? How better to help prepare children for words that "aren't proper" for daily conversation than to not have to bother with teaching them those words at all?

I don't like this system. I don't espouse this system. But I live within it, and I have to abide by it if I'm to survive within it.

Be surprised by it? Not me.
No, it shouldn't surprise anyone, least of all those of us who are writers. We know the power of words, and that ideas for which you have no words are all but impossible to discuss.
I've bolded "Junior Dictionary" here because I think that is an important distinction.
I don't even remember such a thing as a 'junior dictionary' from my youth. We had 'abridged' dictionaries we carried or kept at home, and the whole honking thing set open on a table at the front of every classroom in case we needed it. The concept that some words were appropriate for 'juniors' and others were not never crossed my mind as a child.
It would not even matter so much were it not for the fact that this is endemic of British society today; what I see is a determined effort to wipe out every tradition, everything "old", in favour of some shallow cultural multicultural brew.
Those who protested politically correct speech from the very first were looked on as loons, but the endgame was obvious although the supporters of political correctness never acknowledge it.

Even today, most liberals don't see the very critical connection between the first and second amendments in the U.S. Constitution.

If you take people's guns from them, they can't defend their self, and you can control their bodies.

It's even more critical to take people's words, for then they can't defend their thoughts. Without freedom of thought, there is no self to defend, and you can control their minds.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
For me, it's a matter of "as well as" Christianity, not "instead of".
Britain's whole history is rooted in the Christian tradition and it one of the things that has given it's charm as well as its strength. Chop away at that base and you will literally get a rootless society without values and standards. This is happening more and more today, and it is sad to see.

I agree that there is really no need for a Junior Dictionary. We never had such things in my time. And our hands were just as small.
 

NeuroFizz

The grad students did it
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
9,493
Reaction score
4,283
Location
Coastal North Carolina
Since when is MP3 a word? It's a model number for an electronic device. Are they giving equal space to the model numbers of the competitors' electronic devices?
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Chop away at that base and you will literally get a rootless society without values and standards. This is happening more and more today, and it is sad to see.
And who, or what, will step in to fill that void? Cui Bono? Always follow the money, so to speak. George Orwell simply missed the year, IMO.
 

tehuti88

Mackinac Island Fanatic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
1,487
Reaction score
149
Location
Not here anymore
Website
www.inkspot.com
Acorns, canaries, and dandelions don't exist anymore, then?? Weird.

I don't see why words have to be cut from a dictionary in order to add new ones. I mean, language is always growing, so why can't dictionaries? Is the language going to run out of room or something?

If it's just a matter of how much it costs to publish a bigger dictionary, I think that's a shame to cut words based on that reason, but at least leave in the words of most lasting importance. I think knowing what an acorn or a dandelion is is far more important than knowing what broadband or an MP3 player is.

*reads a few more posts*

I'm liberal BTW, and I fail to see how this could be related to that. I find this concept stupid too, so where did that idea come from?? I don't think everything has to boil down to politics. Even the reasons given by the publisher sound false to me. I don't think it has much to do with "multiculturalism" etc. etc. at all. Don't even pagans find things like acorns and dandelions important?

I think this has far more to do with trying to be "trendy" and with making money than it has to do with being more diverse.
 
Last edited:

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
23,708
Reaction score
10,657
Location
In a world of my own making
Website
shadowferret.wordpress.com
Examples of words removed:

Acorn, bacon, beech, beetroot, blackberry, blacksmith, bloom, bluebell, bramble, buttercup, canary, catkin, clover, dandelion,
OK, if this is a JUNIOR dictionary, I would think these words would need to be in there. Don't kids in Britain get outside at all? Are they all urban and never see an acorn or a dandelion?

This is just weird.

And you'd think they'd keep blackberry, just change the meaning to a hand-held personal data thingie. :)
 

Dave.C.Robinson

... with the High Command
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,130
Reaction score
186
Location
At the computer
Website
www.daverobinsonwrites.com
They took out BACON!

That's the one that gets me. I can understand limiting words that children might not need to know given the space in a junior dictionary, but not the removal of bacon.

That's just wrong.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I agree it's stupid, but at the same time, I think it's important to remember--as others have pointed out--that it is a "Junior" dictionary. It's going to be smaller. It's not going to have as many words in the first place. If they could include all of them, it's not going to be "Junior" anymore.

Some of the new additions are ridiculous. Celebrity? MP3 (which is an electronic format, not a device, by the way)? But let's be honest: how often do kids run into beetroots and blacksmiths these days? And conversely, you'd actually be surprised how many people don't know what broadband is, even if they use it every day.

And as for losing their Christian culture? Really? Many years ago, when I was in kindergarten, we learned songs from all over the world. We sang in Swahili, Spanish, Portuguese...etc. We might have sang some traditional Christmas songs. We might not have. Honestly, I don't remember. But really, I got enough Christmas at home, at friends, everywhere else. And we weren't even Christian. Why learn about something you already see everywhere?

I understand the worry. But it's up to a society, up to the parents and children, up to the home to preserve a culture. Not school. Not a dictionary.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
I agree it's stupid, but at the same time, I think it's important to remember--as others have pointed out--that it is a "Junior" dictionary. It's going to be smaller. It's not going to have as many words in the first place. If they could include all of them, it's not going to be "Junior" anymore.

But they removed twice as many words as they put in! Something is going on here....

But let's be honest: how often do kids run into beetroots and blacksmiths these days? And conversely, you'd actually be surprised how many people don't know what broadband is, even if they use it every day.
Blacksmith, I grant you; at least in the UK they are fairly obsolete, unless you are of the small minority keep horses, in which case they are not. But beetroots can be seen in any grocery. Just the other week I bought beetroots and made Borscht. And what about coming across these words in books not understanding them, and looking them up? Isn't that what dictionaries are for?

Why learn about something you already see everywhere?

Not in England. Trust me on this. This is the epitome of the 100% secular society. There is nothing Christian to be seen or heard anywhere; except for a few old buildings attended by a few old people on Sundays. There is nothing at all Christian about Christmas. To date I have not seen one single Christian symbol, heard one single Christian carol this season. It's all snowmen, Santa Claus and Jingle Bells

I understand the worry. But it's up to a society, up to the parents and children, up to the home to preserve a culture. Not school. Not a dictionary.

For a child's spiritual life, yes, the parents and the home are responsible.
But a school's task is to educate, and for a society whose history is so enmeshed in Christianity and the monarchy as the UK, removing words like bishop and empire from the dictionary is just... well. *Shakes head*
So are they not goiung to teach history any more????
0
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
But they removed twice as many words as they put in! Something is going on here....

Well that's idiotic..


Not in the England. Trust me on this. This is the epitome of the 100% secular society. There is nothing Christian to be seen or heard anywhere; except for a few old buildings attended by a few old people on Sundays. There is nothing at all Christian about Christmas. To date I have not seen one single Christian symbol, heard one single Christian carol this season. It's all snowmen and Santa Claus.

Is that simply how people choose to live, or is it a result of something else?

If it's the former, well, societies evolve. If it's the latter, I agree it could be a problem.



But a school's task is to educate, and for a society whose history is so enmeshed in Christianity and the monarchy as the UK, removing words like bishop and empire from the dictionary is just... well.

Shakes head.

So are they not goiung to teach history any more????

I agree.


Ultimately, though, it comes down to what kids need to look up the most. I have no idea what process they used to decide? Did they actually do research, or was it at some lunatic's whim?
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
If it's the former, well, societies evolve. If it's the latter, I agree it could be a problem.

In this case, I would not call it evolution. It's erosion.
Trust me again, this place is slowly breaking apart, crumbling at its roots. You see it everywhere, especially weekend nights where scores of young people, teenagers, are delivered into hospitals because they have drunk themselves into unconsciousness; where many teenage girls choose single motherhood as a career move; where binge drinking is just normal teen behaviour.

Here's a chilling story of something that happened near my home last weekend, and it's not unusual at all. And yes, it's the parents who are at fault here, but thirty years ago those parents would have been churchgoing Christians and known how to raise their daughter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-precocious-girl-ruthless-internet-gang.html

I hate to come across as fuddy-duddy, and yes, I know that atheists can be just as ethical and good and moral as Christians. And I myself am also not Christian; but I have no doubt that these developments are not good things, and that a religion can play an important part in preventing them.
0
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
I understand the worry. But it's up to a society, up to the parents and children, up to the home to preserve a culture. Not school. Not a dictionary.

I disagree. If you rely on homes to teach culture -- homes where the parents themselves learned nothing of their culture at school, but just what was handed down to them, eventually all of your "culture" is tainted with personal biases and irrational abberations caused by ignorance.

The renaissance, our world's greatest explosion of art and knowledge happened when colleges and governments began actively supporting and teaching the cultural heritage of the nearly forgotten greco-roman ages. Had Europe left the teaching of "culture" to the home and church, we'd likely still be in the dark ages the church wanted us in. Uneducated, unaware of our proud history, never knowing the vast wealth of history and tradition that each person has.

When I travel to Virginia, and I walk along the revolutionary war sites, I see the mass graves of confederate and union soldiers, and I see the hundreds of years of history that America has enriched its soil with (and in the UK, you've got hundreds and HUNDREDS of years of history likewise), it makes me weep that the most any kid's going to get out of their history textbook is that "The United States fought against England, winning their independence," or "The Civil War was fought primarily over states' rights and slavery." -- Because those chapters have been reduced to make room for sections on Barry Bonds and the iPod.
 

nevada

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
2,590
Reaction score
697
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Excuse me Aruna but where in that article does it say that the parents are not churchgoing Christians and didn't raise their daughter right? In a thread about words in or not in a dictionary, I'm extremely offended that you chose to reduce it to Christian or not Christian and the assertion that only religion can save children. It is a patently false assertion because it presumes that religious people always raise their children right and that religious people do not abuse their kids or neglect them, and even you must admit that that is absolutely not true.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
yes, I know that atheists can be just as ethical and good and moral as Christians.

I'd leave it at that.

But I also want to mention not all non-Christians are atheists. Nor is everyone secular an atheist. Nor am I an atheist.

Also, it's just as possible for religious people to be morally corrupt and engage in risky behavior.

I disagree. If you rely on homes to teach culture -- homes where the parents themselves learned nothing of their culture at school, but just what was handed down to them, eventually all of your "culture" is tainted with personal biases and irrational abberations caused by ignorance.

The renaissance, our world's greatest explosion of art and knowledge happened when colleges and governments began actively supporting and teaching the cultural heritage of the nearly forgotten greco-roman ages. Had Europe left the teaching of "culture" to the home and church, we'd likely still be in the dark ages the church wanted us in. Uneducated, unaware of our proud history, never knowing the vast wealth of history and tradition that each person has.

When I travel to Virginia, and I walk along the revolutionary war sites, I see the mass graves of confederate and union soldiers, and I see the hundreds of years of history that America has enriched its soil with (and in the UK, you've got hundreds and HUNDREDS of years of history likewise), it makes me weep that the most any kid's going to get out of their history textbook is that "The United States fought against England, winning their independence," or "The Civil War was fought primarily over states' rights and slavery." -- Because those chapters have been reduced to make room for sections on Barry Bonds and the iPod.

There's a difference between teaching about cultures, teaching history, and teaching culture itself.

I disagree with the latter.

The problem is that in a diverse society, everyone comes from a different culture. I don't know about England...but in America it would mean teaching Christian culture, teaching Asian culture, teaching African culture, teaching Irish culture, teaching Zuni culture.

Now, I've learned about all of those (save for Zuni...) in school. But as part of history and social studies. There's a different between preserving and practicing one's own culture and hearing about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.