Is a Dictionary a Secondary Source? Let’s Dive Into the Debate

I’ll never forget the first time I had to write a research paper in college. You know, the one that has you panicking, running to the library, and hoping the sources you find are “legit.” I remember sitting there with a friend at the campus coffee shop, both of us frantically flipping through books and journals. She suddenly mentioned that she had been relying on the dictionary a lot, just to make sure she had the definitions down right. And then came the question: "Is a dictionary a secondary source?"

Honestly, I had never really thought about it that way before. My mind instantly went to that old, trusty dictionary I had on my shelf, the one with pages that were starting to yellow and tear. But I realized then that the answer wasn’t as simple as I thought. So, here I am, with a little more experience, digging into that question and sharing what I’ve learned since that conversation.

What Is a Secondary Source Anyway?

Before diving into whether a dictionary qualifies as a secondary source, let’s rewind a bit. Secondary sources are those that interpret, analyze, or summarize information from primary sources. You know, they take something original and provide their own twist on it. For example, if you're reading a biography, that’s a secondary source. It’s not the person’s original diary or autobiography (which would be a primary source), but rather someone else’s interpretation or analysis of their life.

At the coffee shop that day, my friend was confidently saying she considered dictionaries secondary sources, and I was inclined to agree—but that’s only because I had always seen them as something secondary to the original context of a word. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized there were some nuances.

A Dictionary: A Primary or Secondary Source?

Now, let's get into the meat of the matter. Is a dictionary truly a secondary source? The short answer? It depends.

Here’s where it gets tricky. Dictionaries are generally considered secondary sources because they don’t offer original data or firsthand accounts. Instead, they compile and summarize existing knowledge. They provide definitions, word origins, pronunciations, and usage examples—all of which are derived from the research and writings of others. It’s like reading a summary of an event rather than experiencing it firsthand.

But—and here's the part that threw me off initially—dictionaries can also serve as primary sources in some contexts. Take historical dictionaries, for example. If you’re digging into the history of a language, a dictionary might give you insight into how words were used in a certain time period. In that case, a dictionary could be considered a primary source because it reflects the language of that specific time. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, traces the history of words over centuries, and using it to study how language evolved in the past might give you direct, original insight into linguistic trends.

It was at this moment, while chatting with my friend at that coffee shop, that I realized the dictionary’s role isn’t fixed—it’s fluid. Depending on how you use it, a dictionary could be secondary, primary, or even tertiary (if you’re using it just to back up something someone else has already said).

Conversations and Real-Life Examples: How We Use Dictionaries

A couple of months after that conversation, I was having another discussion with a friend who was working on a history thesis. She was describing how she was using dictionaries to understand the evolution of certain terms in the context of 18th-century literature. She talked about historical dictionaries and how they were essential for understanding the societal shifts reflected in the language of the time. That moment made me realize how often dictionaries go beyond just "being a source" and actually become a tool that shapes the way we interpret things.

So, is it a secondary source for my friend working on her thesis? Absolutely. She wasn’t using it to define a word in today’s terms but to understand how the language of a period was crafted and interpreted.

But then, another friend—a journalist—told me something that threw me off again. He was working on a feature article and had used a dictionary to get the exact definition of a word for a sentence. In this case, it was more like a tertiary source—something that’s already been interpreted and documented by countless other experts. And that’s where dictionaries tend to fall in everyday research: as tertiary tools, offering nothing original but a reliable starting point.

Facts vs. Interpretation: The Heart of the Debate

In talking to experts about this topic, I’ve also learned that the real challenge isn’t whether a dictionary is a secondary source but understanding how it serves our needs in research. Dictionaries, by nature, offer summaries of meaning and usage, compiled over time from primary sources like literature, spoken word, and legal documents. But if you look at the dictionary as a tool for presenting facts without analysis or opinion, then it’s hard to argue it’s anything more than a secondary resource in the traditional sense.

But don’t be fooled into thinking that it’s a cut-and-dry issue. The role of dictionaries in research can vary depending on context. As I mentioned earlier, historical dictionaries can become almost like primary sources themselves, shedding light on how societies viewed language at specific points in history.

Final Thoughts: What I’ve Learned Along the Way

So, as the debate continued between my friends, it became clear that dictionaries—whether they serve as secondary or primary sources—are indispensable. They may not give us the original thought or firsthand account of an event, but they provide the groundwork that allows us to explore, understand, and interpret the world around us. After all, they help us understand the very words we use to communicate our ideas, and in that way, they’re key to the flow of knowledge.

Is the dictionary a secondary source? In most cases, yes—but it’s not just a dry, academic tool. It's a living, breathing source of understanding, constantly evolving. Like that night in the coffee shop, the conversation about dictionaries isn’t something with a simple, one-size-fits-all answer. It’s something that gets richer the more we dive into it.

So next time you're sipping a drink with friends and the topic of dictionaries comes up, you might have a lot more to say than you think.

Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old?

The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too. It's a very normal height for a girl.

Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old?

How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 137 cm to 162 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/3 feet). A 12 year old boy should be between 137 cm to 160 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/4 feet).

How tall is a average 15 year old?

Average Height to Weight for Teenage Boys - 13 to 20 Years

How to get taller at 18?

Staying physically active is even more essential from childhood to grow and improve overall health. But taking it up even in adulthood can help you add a few inches to your height. Strength-building exercises, yoga, jumping rope, and biking all can help to increase your flexibility and grow a few inches taller.

Is 5.7 a good height for a 15 year old boy?

Generally speaking, the average height for 15 year olds girls is 62.9 inches (or 159.7 cm). On the other hand, teen boys at the age of 15 have a much higher average height, which is 67.0 inches (or 170.1 cm).

Can you grow between 16 and 18?

Most girls stop growing taller by age 14 or 15. However, after their early teenage growth spurt, boys continue gaining height at a gradual pace until around 18. Note that some kids will stop growing earlier and others may keep growing a year or two more.

Can you grow 1 cm after 17?

Even with a healthy diet, most people's height won't increase after age 18 to 20. The graph below shows the rate of growth from birth to age 20. As you can see, the growth lines fall to zero between ages 18 and 20 ( 7 , 8 ). The reason why your height stops increasing is your bones, specifically your growth plates.