A Note on the Use of Dictionaries (2012) [pdf]
greenbag.org
greenbag.org
- 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.
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.
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!
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?
> "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.