Affiliation:
1. Brigham Young University
Abstract
Judges in the United States frequently appeal to the concept of “ordinary meaning” when tasked with interpreting legal texts. Yet U.S. judges lack a shared, coherent definition of what “ordinary meaning” actually means and they lack a shared, coherent method for discovering “ordinary meaning”. This chapter addresses some of the ways that U.S. judges characterize “ordinary meaning”. It also discusses how judges go about searching for “ordinary meaning.” The chapter also proposes that legal interpreters should place more reliance in usage evidence when tasked with interpreting a legal text and finding its “ordinary meaning”.
Publisher
John Benjamins Publishing Company