Dictionaries have been influenced significantly by the changing values of society. The historical events that happen during or near a dictionary’s creation will always shape the dictionary. Lexicographers and dictionary editors are humans who can never be completely impartial. There is no objectivity when it comes to making a dictionary as Anne Cruzman puts it in the Adam Ruins Everything podcast “Anne Curzan Talks Grammar and the Flexibility of Language,” “Language is not math.” The assertion that dictionaries are the absolute “authorities” when it comes to definitions becomes flawed when one looks at the enormous impact personal priorities can have on dictionary-making. Should dictionary editors be trusted with the power govern language when they easily are swayed by their interests? Dictionaries are not impartial and have significantly changed due to societal pressure and personal preference.

For example, lexicographer, Joseph Worcester,  worked tirelessly on his 1806 dictionary, the Compendious Dictionary of American English. Worcester, however, was a Christian nationalist who preferred British English to American English. He preferred the British spelling and pronunciation of words. His personal preference and familiarity influenced his dictionary significantly. (Jost 3)

Noah Webster, another early American lexicographer, was more attached to the American dialect of English than Worcester but was heavily influenced by his faith. He was an “unabashedly Christian dictionary-maker who drew heavily on the bible for citations” (Jost 2). He also stated that his dictionary was a dictionary for those “who care about traditional values” ( Jost 3).  Noah Webster’s conservative Christian values demonstrate the heavy western focus that surrounded the creation of dictionaries. The widely known and used Merriam-Webster dictionary traces its origin to Webster’s An American Dictionary of the English Language. American dictionaries have been rooted in traditional Christian values.

David Guralnik is another major lexicographer that demonstrates the impact of the period in which a dictionary is made. He was editor-in-chief of New World dictionaries from 1948 to 1985. Guralnick chose to exclude many racial slurs and curse words from his dictionaries, reflecting the changing opinions on racial issues brought about by the civil rights movement that dominated the 50s and 60s. Guralnik was “unafraid to act on his opinions of what a dictionary should and should not be burdened with” (Jost 3).  Dictionaries have been influenced by their historical context and can be expected to continue being affected by shifting public opinion.

In contemporary times, concerns about profit being the main priority in modern dictionary-making lead to additional issues with the view that dictionaries are an ‘authority.’ David Jost, an insider in the dictionary-making industry, laments that “commercial dictionaries have become truly commercial” (1) and that a “corporate executive…who [ does not] has any specific knowledge of dictionaries, how they are produced or their histories” (1) are often the ones making meaningful choices about how the dictionary is produced.  Dictionaries that are run by executives who do not understand dictionaries and prioritize profit should not be considered an ‘authority.’ Should dictionary publishing companies whose main objective is to make a profit be the ones to decide what is a word and is not? Bias and special interests will unavoidably seep in when the main objective is to profit.