Theory and Practice of Legal Documents Interpretation by Courts with Using Dictionaries
Abstract
The courts make interpretation of different documents, first of all, legal documents like statutes and contracts, and this interpretation becomes a matter of disputes in courtrooms. While the courts must describe the grounds of their decisions, a choice of certain interpretation needs to be argued. The court must demonstrate objectivity of the choice and its’ non-arbitrariness. While the courts often appeal to the ordinary meaning of words, dictionaries play the role of proves of this meaning. This is not the only way to prove the ordinary meaning of a word, thought the simplest, easiest, and therefore widely used. The references to the dictionaries in judgments of Russian and U.S. courts were compared. At first, references to dictionaries are traditional and numerous practices in the U.S., while there are only a few references in judgements of Russian courts. At second, the Russian courts use the general dictionaries, but make interpretations of special legal terms. The U.S. courts more often use dictionaries for interpretation of common words and if they interpret legal terms, they use legal dictionaries. In the both jurisdictions the idea that all legal texts made with ordinary language motivates the use of general dictionaries, thought the idea raise skepticism both from practical and theoretical points of view. Words in legal texts become special legal terms due to strict, precise and certain usage. This concerns even those words, which beyond legal documents are vague in their meaning. References to dictionaries do not meet the aim of objective interpretation: the choice of dictionary certain meaning of a word remains to be discretionary. The purposes of objective interpretation of words in legal documents could be achieved by analysis of legal corpora, linguistic expertise or through special legal dictionaries. The latter appeared to be the most preferred way.
References
Aprill E. (1998) The law of the word: dictionary shopping in the Supreme Court. Arizona State Law Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 275-336.
Batyushkina M.V. (2020) Legal concept and legal term: features of correlation and definitions (based on the material of Russian laws). Vestnik Kemerovskogo universiteta=Bulletin of Kemerovo University, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 207-215 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-1-207-215
Brudney J., Baum L. (2013) Oasis or mirage: The Supreme Court's thirst for dictionaries in the Rehnquist and Roberts eras. William and Mary Law Review, vol. 55, pp. 483-580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2195644
Coon N. (2019) 162 years of dictionary use in the Oregon appellate courts. Willamette Law Review, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 213-260.
Eskridge W. (1995) Cases and materials on legislation: statutes and the creation of public policy. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 970 p.
Golev N.D. (1999) The legal aspect of language in linguistic coverage. Urislingvist ika=Jurislinguistics, no. 1, pp. 12-59 (in Russ.)
Green S. (2010) Understanding CERCLA through Webster's New World dictionary and state common law: forestalling the federalization of property law. New England Law Review, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 835-868.
Hutton C. (2011) Objectification and transgender jurisprudence: the dictionary as quasi-statute. Hong Kong Law Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 27-47.
Katrechko N.A. (2009) The law as the key to justice (based on the material of the German language). Filologicheskie nauki=Philological Sciences, no. 2, pp. 136-140 (in Russ.)
Khabibulina N.I. (2012) Grammatical interpretation of the norms of law. Rossiyskaya ustitcia=Russian justice, no. 7, pp. 56-62 (in Russ.)
Kirchmeier J. (2010) Scaling the lexicon fortress: the United States Supreme Court's use of dictionaries in the twenty-first century. Marquette Law Review, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 77-262.
Mersky R. (2006) The Dictionary and the man: eighth edition of Black's law dictionary. Washington and Lee Law Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 719-733.
Mouritsen S. (2010) The dictionary is not a fortress: definitional fallacies and a corpus-based approach to plain meaning. Brigham Young University Law Review, no. 5, pp. 1915-1978.
Mouritsen S. (2017) Corpus linguistics in legal interpretation. An evolving interpretative framework. Journal of Legal Linguistic, vol. 6, pp. 67-89.
Nelson C. (2003) Originalism and interpretive conventions. University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 70, pp. 519-598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1600589
Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N. Yu. (1996) Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. 3rd ed. Moscow: AZ press, 928 p. (in Russ.)
Scalia A. (1995) Common-law courts in a civil-law system: the role of United States federal courts in interpreting the Constitution and laws. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 1995, pp. 77-121.
Solan L., Gales T. (2016) Finding ordinary meaning in law: the judge, the dictionary or the corpus? International Journal of Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 253-276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0016
Tankersley D. (2018) Beyond the dictionary: why Sua Sponte judicial use of corpus linguistics is not appropriate for statutory interpretation. Mississippi Law Journal, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 641-677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3117223
Thumma S., Kirchmeier J. (1999) The lexicon has become a fortress: The United States Supreme Court's use of dictionaries. Buffalo Law Review, vol. 47, pp. 227-302.
Trubachev O.N. (1988) Methods of semantic reconstruction. Comparative historical study of languages of different families. Theory of linguistic reconstruction. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 197-222 (in Russ.)
Vinogradov V.V. (1977) The main types of lexical meanings of the word. In: Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 162-189 (in Russ.)
Yates S. (2011) Black's law dictionary: the making of an American standard. Law Library Journal, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 175-198.
Copyright (c) 2023 Law Journal of the Higher School of Economics

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.