在你的Funk & Wagnalls中查找它:法院如何定义法律词汇

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Dictionaries Pub Date : 2022-12-15 DOI:10.1353/dic.2022.0015
Dennis Baron
{"title":"在你的Funk & Wagnalls中查找它:法院如何定义法律词汇","authors":"Dennis Baron","doi":"10.1353/dic.2022.0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:American courts employ dictionaries more than ever to help them determine the meaning of words in the law. Judges are starting to explore the use of corpora and corpus linguistics to do so as well. Dictionaries both support and fail to support the complex process of legal interpretation. Judges accept or reject dictionary definitions or, in some cases, they select among conflicting definitions those that fit what they feel the outcome of the case should be. The growing interest in corpus linguistics may supplement the judicial reliance on dictionaries, but both dictionary definitions and corpus evidence require interpretation, a process that is inherently subjective. Although dictionaries have some drawbacks for legal work, courts are not likely to abandon them. Corpora present their own set of problems for legal interpretation, but they may eventually join dictionaries as fundamental, if imperfect, resources for the courts.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Look It Up in Your Funk & Wagnalls: How Courts Define the Words of the Law\",\"authors\":\"Dennis Baron\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/dic.2022.0015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:American courts employ dictionaries more than ever to help them determine the meaning of words in the law. Judges are starting to explore the use of corpora and corpus linguistics to do so as well. Dictionaries both support and fail to support the complex process of legal interpretation. Judges accept or reject dictionary definitions or, in some cases, they select among conflicting definitions those that fit what they feel the outcome of the case should be. The growing interest in corpus linguistics may supplement the judicial reliance on dictionaries, but both dictionary definitions and corpus evidence require interpretation, a process that is inherently subjective. Although dictionaries have some drawbacks for legal work, courts are not likely to abandon them. Corpora present their own set of problems for legal interpretation, but they may eventually join dictionaries as fundamental, if imperfect, resources for the courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dictionaries\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dictionaries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2022.0015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dictionaries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2022.0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:美国法院比以往任何时候都更多地使用词典来帮助他们确定法律中单词的含义。法官们也开始探索语料库和语料库语言学的使用。词典既支持也不支持复杂的法律解释过程。法官接受或拒绝词典定义,或者在某些情况下,他们在相互冲突的定义中选择符合他们认为案件结果的定义。对语料库语言学日益增长的兴趣可能会补充司法对词典的依赖,但词典定义和语料库证据都需要解释,这一过程本质上是主观的。尽管词典在法律工作中有一些缺点,但法院不太可能放弃它们。公司为法律解释提出了自己的一系列问题,但它们最终可能会加入词典,成为法院的基本资源,如果不完善的话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Look It Up in Your Funk & Wagnalls: How Courts Define the Words of the Law
ABSTRACT:American courts employ dictionaries more than ever to help them determine the meaning of words in the law. Judges are starting to explore the use of corpora and corpus linguistics to do so as well. Dictionaries both support and fail to support the complex process of legal interpretation. Judges accept or reject dictionary definitions or, in some cases, they select among conflicting definitions those that fit what they feel the outcome of the case should be. The growing interest in corpus linguistics may supplement the judicial reliance on dictionaries, but both dictionary definitions and corpus evidence require interpretation, a process that is inherently subjective. Although dictionaries have some drawbacks for legal work, courts are not likely to abandon them. Corpora present their own set of problems for legal interpretation, but they may eventually join dictionaries as fundamental, if imperfect, resources for the courts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dictionaries
Dictionaries Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信