Dictionaries keep up with the Joneses

BRITAIN

THE definition of marriage is being changed in dictionaries after new measures allowing same-sex couples to marry became law last month.

The online versions of the Collins, Macmillan and Oxford English dictionaries acknowledge that marriage is no longer limited to a man and a woman. The next paper editions published will do the same.

Collins amended its definition from the legal union or contract ‘‘made by a man and a woman to live as husband and wife’’ to one ‘‘made by two people to live together’’. Macmillan’s definition of marriage as a ‘‘relationship between two people who are husband or wife’’ now includes the addendum ‘‘or a similar relationship between people of the same sex’’.

Oxford added ‘‘the relation between persons married to each other’’ to its definition ‘‘the condition of being a husband or wife’’ with the note that ‘‘the term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex’’.

Ian Brookes, consultant editor at Collins Dictionaries, said meetings were held recently to decide the new wording.

‘‘It’s very easy to keep on top of things [like this] because it features heavily in the news. It is the things that change insidiously that slip past and leave you with out-of-date terms,’’ he said.

Compilers for the Oxford English Dictionary said that reacting to changes in the law was not as important as monitoring speech. ‘‘Dictionaries reflect changes in the use of language, rather than changes in law, and we are constantly monitoring usage in this area in order to consider what revisions and updates we may need to make. The English language is always developing and, along with many other words, we will continue to monitor the way in which ‘marriage’ is used,’’ they said.

Macmillan Dictionaries suggested that the definitions for ‘‘husband’’ and ‘‘wife’’ could also be changed. Michael Rundell, editor-in-chief, said: ‘‘In a samesex relationship, two men are probably not going to refer to themselves as ‘wife’, but if it’s two women they might, so we need to keep an eye on that.’’

Macmillan has relaxed its definition on the use of ‘‘of’’ so that it can be used in the phrase ‘‘to be bored of’’ something. ‘‘Statistically, it’s about equally as common as ‘bored with’. It will upset some traditionalists, but it’s not our job to say we don’t like it or we don’t approve,’’ Rundell said.

Collins has, like Oxford, relaxed its rules over ‘‘literally’’ so it can be used as an intensifier, and has also acknowledged the common misuse of ‘‘refute’’ to mean ‘‘deny’’ rather than ‘‘disprove’’, albeit with a note saying it should be avoided in formal contexts.

Brookes said that dictionaries rarely declare uses to be wrong.

‘‘I think people who grew up in schools where they were taught that there are right and wrong ways of doing things get upset,’’ he said. ‘‘Now we tend to talk about language for use in formal or informal contexts.

‘‘It’s not as if language is ever quite as pure as grammarians and pedants insist.’’