Every Lawyer a Lexicographer

• Author: Bryan A. Garner
• Pages: 26-27

26 || ABA JOURNAL JUNE 2018

Every Lawyer a Lexicographer

Defi ning words with clarity, brevity and practicality

By Bryan A. Garner

I’m a lexicographer by trade: a writ er of

dictionaries—or, as Samuel Johnson added

to his 1755 defi nition, “a harmless drudge.”

But then so are you if you prepare legal

instruments. Law yers are constantly creating

defi nitions, seemingly to a greater ex tent as

time goes by. These defi nitions appear mostly

in transact ional practice (contracts, wills, et c.)

but also in legislative and reg ulatory work

(statutes and rules)—and even in briefs.

Over the past quar ter century, I’ve hired lawyer-sta  ers

to help me in my work on Black’s Law Dictiona ry. The

test I formerly used was to a sk interviewees to defi ne the

word hotel—on the spot, with just a penci l and a legal

pad. It’s a pretty good test .

In fact, I encourage you to t ake that test now. Before

reading to the end of this c olumn, try writing a defi nition

for the word hotel. Later, you can compare your e orts

against what I’d consider an accepta ble defi nition. Mind

you, there’s no client asking for a particula r defi nit ion

slanting things one way or another. You’re just trying to

defi ne the common meaning of hotel. Have at it.

The Utah Supreme Court once tried t o defi ne hotel,

and its defi nition became ensconced in the fi fth and

sixth editions of Bl ack’s Law Dictionary (1979, 1990).

It was a pretty poor defi nition, missing a cruci al element

and containing a gra mmatical bobble. So when I became

editor-in-chief of Bl ack’s in the mid-1990s, I removed it

—partly because it ’s not a legal term any way.

True, there has been litigation about hotels, but there

has also been litigat ion about nails, screws, washers

and just about every thing under the sun. If those terms

go into a law dictionar y, then everyth ing goes in. For

lexicographers (like you a nd me), the choice of coverage

in a glossary or dic tionary is known as lemmatiz ation.

Which words get in?

I trust you’ve now defi ned the word hotel to the best

of your ability. Excellent.

‘ABSURDLY ENCYCLOPEDIC’

The word hotel has a histor y with me as a lexicogra-

pher. In July 1979, while studying at Oxford University,

I attended a talk by Rober t W. Burchfi eld, editor-in-

chief of A Supplement to th e Oxford English Dictionar y.

He was the most revered lexicog rapher on earth, and he

made the word hotel the centerpiec e of his talk by con-

trasting how Americ an and English dictionaries treat

the term.

Burchfi eld was proud of the defi nition in the Oxford

English Diction ary: “a house for the entertainment

of strangers and travelers, an i nn; esp., one that is, or

claims to be, of a superior k ind.” That had fi rst app eared

in print about 1901. Burchfi eld conceded that

house wasn’t quite right in the late 20t h century,

but then it wasn’t really quite right when it wa s

written: There were many hotel s that were large

commercial struc tures even in the late 19th

century.

But Burchfi eld argued that at least that

defi nition is a defi nition, not an encyclopedia

entry. To a lexicographer, encyclopedic infor-

mation goes beyond the core meaning of the t erm

being defi ned, and it’s generally viewed by British

lexicographers as ex traneous.

Burchfi eld criticized American le xicographers as

absurdly encyclopedic in thei r approach, and he cited a

defi nition of hotel in Webster’s Third New International

Dictionar y of the English Language (1961—but still

the defi nitive Merriam-Webster unabridged diction-

ary). Here goes; stay with it through the end: “a build-

ing of many rooms chiefl y for overnight accommodation

of transients and several fl oors served by elevat ors, usu.

with a large open stre et-level lobby containing easy

chairs, with a v ariety of compartments for eating, dr ink-

ing, dancing, exhibitions, a nd group meetings (as of

salesmen or convention attendants), with shops having

both inside and street-side entra nces and o er ing for

sale items (as clothes, gift s, candy, theater tickets, travel

tickets) of particular int erest to a traveler, or providing

personal serv ices (as hair-d ressing, shoe shining), and

with telephone booths, wr iting tables, and washrooms

freely available.”

As you might imagine, hea ring Burchfi eld read this

defi nition, slowly, in his inimitable Oxonian/New

Zealander accent , provoked a good deal of laughter

from the students present at his lect ure. The defi n ition

is surely wrong in requir ing “several fl oor s served by

elevators,” but at least much of the silly specifi cs (shoe

shines, hair-d ressing, etc.) follows the abbreviation

“usu.” (usually). One element missing from both of t hose

defi nitions is that lodging at a hotel typica lly involves a

charge—it’s a commercial a air.

A HOTEL EVOLUTION

The defi nitions in Black’s Law Dictionar y show an

interesting evolution. In 1891, Henry Campbell Black ’s

entry read thi s way: “An inn; a public house or tavern;

a house for entertaining str angers or travelers.” That’s

about as good as the defi nition in the OED, even though

we no longer equate hotels with pubs and taverns.

In 1910, Black kept that entry but expanded the di s-

cussion, saying “there is no di  erence whatever b etween

the terms, hotel, inn, a nd tavern” unless a state-specifi c

statute might say otherw ise. He went on to say that a

Bryan

Garner

on Words

Practice