In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

American Speech 77.4 (2002) 344-357



[Access article in PDF]

A Lexicography Legacy of Fred Cassidy:
Forensic Linguistics

Roger W. Shuy
Georgetown University

I had the distinct privilege of knowing Fred Cassidy during the last 40 years of his life. In 1962, with my then-recent Ph.D. in English linguistics from Case Western Reserve University, I had the audacity to send him one of the only five carbon copies of my doctoral dissertation on the dialects of northern Illinois, mentored by Raven I. McDavid, Jr. (this was, of course, long before photocopying was common). His response was, as always, encouraging and helpful. Three years later, I conducted a summer workshop for secondary teachers of English at Michigan State University and invited Cassidy to give a series of lectures on dictionaries and language change. His talks were, as one might expect, brilliant and very positively received. At that point we began a 35-year correspondence, ending only with his death. His influence on my career was tremendous, even though I soon left the study of dialectology per se and spent most of my life first doing sociolinguistics, then forensic linguistics. Today, as I consult with attorneys on civil and criminal law cases, his teaching is still a force in my life, as the following attests.

Using Dictionaries in Civil Law Cases

Many lawyers, judges, and juries are pretty much like everyone else when it comes to dictionaries. They seem to think that if you quote the dictionary, you've established whatever authority you need. The notion that "the dictionary" stands for all dictionaries is still as pervasive as it was when this authoritarian attitude was pointed out in Robertson (1954, 344) some 50 years ago:

The attitude of even well-educated persons toward dictionaries is often curiously naive. . . . When any problem regarding the sound or form or meaning arises, the usual question is, "What does the dictionary say?" The implication, of course, is that there is only one verdict to be found in any dictionary, and that dictionaries, of any kind and any date, are all equally valuable. [End Page 344]

This paper describes some of the problems that the legal community faces in using dictionaries at trial, including the problems of their authoritativeness, of their selective use, of the necessary incompleteness of their entries, of phantom definitions, and of the inequality of the dictionaries themselves. 1 Not surprisingly, these were some of the same points that Cassidy made to my high school English teachers in 1965.

The Problem of Legal Authority versus Dictionary Authority

Just what authority does a dictionary really have? In trademark infringement cases, the courts sometimes rely on dictionaries. Curiously, however, the courts also give evidence of assigning authority to themselves alone, since the authority of the field of law seems to rank even higher than that of "the" dictionary. Inconsistency in just how authoritative dictionaries are considered by different courts is documented by Robinson (1982). Landau (1989, 298-302) observes that lawyers and lexicographers are in a constant conflict that grows out of their respective differences in task and goal. Even when dictionaries disclaim any responsibility for affecting the trademark status of entries, such disclaimers can be of little avail. When a trademark is used by the general public as though it were a generic word, the dictionary makers are obliged to record that usage. Otherwise, the reading public would be deprived of knowledge of how the language is used by the public. Some trademark owners object to such reporting of actual usage, however scientifically gathered or accurate it may be, claiming that a generic use of their trademark, including a figurative use cited in a dictionary, violates trademark law. If lexicographers still deign to pursue their primary obligation to report actual usage, they risk receiving threatening letters from counsel for the trademark owner that suggest the possibility of a trademark infringement case. 2 So the authority of lexicography comes face to face with the authority of law.

When one examines current commonly used and respected dictionaries, one can find evidence that the law actually has control over at...

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1527-2133
Print ISSN
0003-1283
Pages
pp. 344-357
Launched on MUSE
2002-12-19
Open Access
No
Archive Status
Archived 2005
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.