An Overview of Garner’s Dictionary
Understanding Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage
The third edition of Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage (2001) is not as entertaining as the second edition (1995). A principal reason for this is that the third edition, unlike the second, does not contain the special section entitled "Dreary Words," in which Professor Garner highlighted selected banalities in judicial opinions and law-review articles. Another reason is that the third edition is 1,352 pages to the second edition’s 1,508. A third reason is that the third edition lacks the personality of the first two editions, owing to the absence of the manuscript’s chief editor, Professor Bryan Garner, who withdrew as editor about mid-1998 when he became "a full-time publisher at West Publishing." As I mentioned before, we owe the delights of the dictionary to Professor Garner, who has an ear for the English language and a taste for refreshing the law with vivid but accurate legal writing. He deserves much credit for conceiving the project for the dictionary and for making it indispensable to legal scholars and to all who write on legal topics.
The first edition of Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, published in 1987, stemmed from Professor Garner’s interest in law and on his frequent reading of legal texts. From 1987 to 1994, the number of pages in the dictionary doubled from 486 to 1 , 508, because, as Professor Garner explained, the remit of the dictionary grew "beyond the (then) prodigious number of usage questions debated by the legal profession." In addition, because by 2001 there were more than 5,000 law schools in the world, and because law schools were giving their faculty members room on the Internet to write about law, which gave rise to "yet a second wave of new usage problems," Professor Garner noted, the number of pages increased further, to 1,352.
The purpose of Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage is to deal with the "problematic legal usages, and by that I mean the usages on which reasonable people can and do disagree. . . . The standard of propriety is determined sociolinguistically—not semantically; that is, by what educated people do, not by what they believe should be the case." As Professor Garner explained in the introduction to the first edition, "The dictionary was conceived so as to serve primarily as a guide to proper legal usage, to be based on the assumption that not all usage is equally good. As in all fields, there are days when there seems to be no substitute for invoking rules, however random, if only to induce humility. That is the purpose served by the dictionary-form glossary: It shows the usages that are frowned on as well as those that are admired."
Highlights of the Dictionary
Among the most noteworthy facets of Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage are these:
Focus on law. Legal writing is a specialized field in which presumably educated practitioners should be conscious of their audience. Legal jargon, though sometimes necessary, can alienate the reader and affect one’s credibility. The dictionary was written for lawyers, judges, legal scholars, law students, paralegals, and writers in general to regard it as an essential resource that will add to one’s store of knowledge. Providing the framework by which this vocabulary is to be used, Garner offers erudition in plain legalese.
Usage notes. Following most entries, the second paragraph consists of a bulleted list of usage advice. While the example given is not verbatim, underscoring the correct use and meaning of the subject word. Though the bullets are brief, they are insightful, providing concise advice, substantiated by grammatical references and supported with illustrative citations.
Examples throughout. Legal writing must be precise if it is to be understood. As such, the best place to look for examples beyond the full-length citations is the dictionary, which provides new, modern, and apaopos citations to books, articles, statutes, cases, and other sources that demonstrate the word in use.
Concise etymologies. The author’s conciseness is evident in his treatment of etymology. He focuses on the relevant part of the word root, only expanding into an explanation when needed. Such is not subsetted into its own section, but is simply in with the full entry.
Parts of speech. With dictionary usage being paramount in legal writing, the word root is identified with the grammatical form of a word. This gives vital assistance, particularly in those times when expertise fails, as we are all prone to forgetting or neglecting the basics of grammar and style.
Reasons for Legal Professionals to Trust it
Beyond its convenience and small size, legal practitioners and scholars have many reasons to rely on Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage. For years, it has been viewed as a go-to source to help solve any questions about idiosyncratic usage in legal or scholarly writing. It has proven reliable for many years. During that time, it has come to be viewed as the standard by which any such question would be answered.
The credibility of the Manual sets it apart from other style guides. It has a pedigree. Professor Bryan A. Garner, the author and editor of the Manual, is the Distinguished Research Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law, where he teaches advanced legal writing.
The comprehensive nature of the Manual makes it invaluable. Garner included an entire chapter devoted to the frequent conundrum of distinguishing between common words or short phrases in legal and scholarly writing that are frequently mistaken for one another, even by experienced writers, or that have one usage that has become so commonplace that it is not necessary or advisable for the legal writer to use a less common usage.
Powerful sentences, often with many examples, are scattered throughout the Manual, such as: "For all its merits, plain language still cannot do exactly what legal prose can do [for ‘Legal prose’ in this context means the obfuscatory and formal writing favored by many judges]. But there are many things that legal prose can do only fitfully or in a clumsy way. The ability to quote texts with pinpoint accuracy is one of the things that legal prose does well. So is legibility."
The Manual is not too big. Much of it is a condensation of Garner’s three other popular (but large) dictionaries: A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, Black’s Law Dictionary, and A Dictionary of American-English Words and Phrases.
Its Influence on the Legal Field
The impact of Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage can be felt throughout both professional writing and communication. A 2010 study linked quality writing of all types with the use and study of Garner’s in particular, with the author of the study concluding that "ordinary speakers of English . . . who also happen to be trainees in an American law firm" showed a marked improvement in their writing when drawing on the "rules and usages" set out by Garner’s.
While some do find it refreshing, legal writers have for as long as they could write been "rebutting the notion that legal writing and speaking should be a stylistic stew," whether it is the influence of legal writing schools at the turn of the 20th century or the most current push from the plain English movement. What may account for the current renaissance in legal writing instruction is the fact that even the most seasoned attorneys are at times found "sprinkling legalese into daily interchange at all levels and in all contexts , " leading many to go by the idea that it "would be better to embrace the conventional view of language than to risk losing the ground-gained by abandoning the preferred forms."
From entry-level associate lawyers to Supreme Court Justices, the book has been held in high regard. One recent judge affirmed that the "acknowledged expert in legal writing . . . is Justice Antonin Scalia, who co-authored another esteemed volume on legal usage and punctuation with Bryan Garner." Even as these written opinions and other legal communications continue to call for a move away from presently used confusing legalese, this stop-gap holds that "Garner’s should be turned to each time legalists compose legalese" so that hope remains for "the death of legalese" to happen sooner rather than later.
Making the Best Use of the Dictionary
One of the keys to improving one’s language skills, including usage and grammar, is to choose a reputable source and consult it frequently. Many lawyers have not considered Garner’s. Even the eagle-eyed and erudite elide over it as if it were a copy-editing guide or general dictionary. They couldn’t be further from the truth. Although Bryan Garner is the Editor in Chief of Black’s Law Dictionary, the book is not really about law. It is more a lexicographical treatise and compilation. In fact, Mr. Garner writes, "I suppose you could read it cover to cover, but who would want to?" Not only would I, for one, find such extraneous exercise galling, but I wouldn’t be in the right mindset. Lawyers want straight answers. They come to legal dictionaries with specific questions about "what’s the right word here" or "how do I use this expression on point." And that leads me to my next point. When consulting Garner’s, go with a specific question in mind, not with the idea that you’ll get an answer to every question you might have. For example, if you’re writing a motion, and you’ve used the word "including," but you’re not sure whether to use it with or without a comma, then search for "including." You’ll also learn more about the word, its origins, and its co-narrative, "comprising." You can take this a little further by branching out from what you actually need. The thesaurus on each word has words of related or opposing meaning, and the grammatical usage section tells you when not to use the word, if ever. By all means, though, go there with at least a specific issue in mind. This will help avoid information overload, learning about so many words that you can’t remember what you looked up in the first place. In that vein, if you do see entries for "including" or "comprising" that haven’t appeared before, and they apply to your project, read them now and save them for your next project. Save your Favourites so you can get back to them at the press of a button. More important, save them in your backend, on your server, so your staff can easily find them later on down the road when they can’t find you. Conversely, if you see an entry for a word you’ve used often, but you don’t believe you’ve ever read it, even though you have the word’s and the author’s specific authority, don’t assume you have it right now. Look up "analogous," for example, and you’ll find out you should have said "analagous" for the last umpteen years. I certainly should have. And, as with hyphenation, there are exceptions — such as appropriate before only, when you’re referring to the appropriate preceding passage — that are just not enough for an official rule, so really they should go down as recommendations to check it again next time. Use the learning function powered by Companies House-the "Did you mean…," "If you meant x, try…" function-to keep your knowledge close, rather than supposition-based. I bestow accolades on anyone who recognizes the power of alliteration. I’m not above it myself. That said, as lawyers, we can be somewhat addicted to alliteration. I’d recommend that anyone who consults Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage do so alone. Lawyers don’t need to argue with each other over the proper way to use and pronounce a word. There’s no need to legally debate it. Read it alone, and take it for what it is — the right way to express yourself.
Wonders of the Dictionary in Comparison with Similar Legal Reference Texts
When it comes to legal reference tools, there are several critical players. The granddaddy of them all is, of course, Black’s Law Dictionary, which has just been updated for the 11th time. A comprehensive, one-stop reference of legal terminology, it features thousands of definitions, covers traditional legal terms, and is even available online via Westlaw and as an app. These attributes make it invaluable for both new and experienced lawyers.
Many lawyers rely on The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (currently in its 19th edition), which sets forth standards for properly citing legal documents and the like. While the launch of the 20th edition has been widely anticipated, it has so far yet to materialize. It’s an important tool, one that helps ensure universal understanding of legal documentation .
Another useful reference is the Punctuation Guide by the author of the classic Elements of Legal Style, with the latter demystifying creation of legal documents. I often use both when looking to clarify and perfect punctuation, although they are less than helpful with grammar issues.
But these other resources don’t focus specifically on legal usage. Many lawyers have found The Elements of Style and the Chicago Manual of Style useful, but again, they are not tailored to the language of the law. Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, by contrast, is specialized.
As Bryan A. Garner writes in its introduction, "The dictionary’s aim is to discuss all disputed usages in the legal literature from a prescriptive viewpoint — that is, to indicate what is considered acceptable and, sometimes, noble, what is standard but often slipshod, and what is definitely disreputable."
These goals help set Garner’s apart from other references.