
A Note on the Use of Dictionaries (2012) [pdf] - jweir
http://www.greenbag.org/v16n4/v16n4_articles_scalia_and_garner.pdf
======
tasogare
Some interesting/applicable results I read about dictionaries lately:

\- dictionary can sometimes cause rather than prevent lexical errors. (Ard, J.
(1982). The use of bilingual dictionaries by EFL students while writing. ITL
Review of Applied Linguistics 58, 1–27.)

\- user tends to select the first meaning they encounter (Nesi, H. & R. Haill
(2002). A study of dictionary use by international students at a British
university. International Journal of Lexicography 15.4, 277–306.)

\- bilingual dictionaries are more useful to lower-proficiency users,
monolingual is better to advanced users (Lew, R. (2004). Which dictionary for
whom? Receptive use of bilingual, monolingual and semi-bilingual dictionaries
by Polish learners of English. Poznan: Motivex.)

\- different people have different lookup preferences and that the use of
multiple dictionary information seems to reinforce retention (Laufer, B., &
Hill, M. (2000). What Lexical Information Do L2 Learners Select in a CALL
Dictionary and How Does It Affect Word Retention? Research Report.)

Interesting meta-study: Nesi, H. (2014). Dictionary use by English language
learners. Language Teaching, 47(1), 38-55.

------
puzzledobserver
I accept that judges sometimes need to refer to dictionaries, but wonder
whether this particular essay is someehow related to Scalia's positions on
orginalism?

Also, why are the "fowls raised for meat" definitions that they use as an
example more explanatory than the "domesticated fowls" definitions?

Is it possible that the authors are confusing greater specificity for being
fuller or more explanatory or superior? Given the prevailing dogma that
English language dictionaries merely describe popular use rather than
prescribe it, it is unclear that the more specific definitions more accurately
describe its use by fluent language users.

~~~
twic
> wonder whether this particular essay is someehow related to Scalia's
> positions on orginalism

Indeed. IANAL, but i suspect that in the poultry case, a British judge would
start with the plain meaning rule, decide that it wasn't absolutely clear
whether a fighting cock was poultry, and then fall back to the mischief rule,
asking what the original intent of the law was. They wouldn't sit around
poring over dictionaries trying to find a definition that fits their desired
meaning. Whereas that's an originalist's favourite thing to do!

~~~
Balanceinfinity
You may agree or disagree with Justice Scalia, but he was not one to sit
around trying to figure out legislative intent when reading a statute
([http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...](http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1486&context=mulr)).
His take was that the legislature spoke through the statutes text, and after
that it was up to the judges.

------
wolfgang42
_> The look and feel of the book do not impress the user as being scholarly.
By scholarly we mean weighty. Not superficial. Chock-full of erudition._

This seems like a bizarrely out-of-place jab in an essay with an otherwise
scholarly tone. Why should the “look and feel” of the texts used matter to the
facts of a case? If the publisher had used thicker paper or a nicer font would
Scalia have been less inclined to criticize the appellate judge?

------
gwking
The 'Influence' section of Scalia's wikipedia bio is interesting and relevant:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia#Influence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia#Influence)

> "Since his death in February of 2016, Scalia’s influence of course continues
> through his three decades of judicial opinions. But he still exerts great
> influence in another, less-discussed way. In 2012, he co-authored the book
> Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts with Bryan A. Garner. This
> work describes numerous “canons,” or rules regarding how to interpret legal
> documents ... A mere seven years since its publication, Reading Law has been
> cited in over 1,000 state and federal cases. Just this spring, for instance,
> Supreme Court justices referenced the work in 10 cases."

Note that Garner is the same co-author as for the linked PDF.

