司法判决中的词典释义

词典在司法过程中的应用是一个值得关注的司法现象。对中国法院519份涉及词典释义的判决文书进行统计分析表明:词典可以作为文义解释的一种特殊工具,但法院对词典的司法功能尚未形成统一的认识,现实中的词典释义并非一种权威、客观或统一的法律适用方法。由于词典及其释义存在诸多不确定性,判决之际具体选择哪一本词典、哪一种释义,受制于语词的使用语境,取决于司法裁量。实践和理论两方面的分析表明:词典释义可以成为法院确定系争词语之含义的起点,但不是决定语词含义的终点或判准。

The Use of Dictionary Definition in Judgments

The use of dictionary definitions in the process of adjudication is a legal phenomenon worthy of attention. From theoretical perspective, dictionary definitions can be used to resolve semantic problems, rebuild semantic consensus, or figure out the possible meanings as soon as possible. Statistic analysis of 519 cases decided by Chinese courts proves that dictionaries can be used as a special tool of literal interpretation, yet the courts have never expressly explained the proper role and use of dictionaries in their judgments. Although literal interpretation tends to rely heavily on dictionary definitions, Chinese judges rarely offer explanation or methodology for their choice of dictionary in a particular opinion. Further investigation also shows that dictionary definition may be manipulated by judges to achieve their desired results or linguistic intuition. In fact, dictionary definition is not an authoritative, objective or consistently applied method of interpretation. Considering the indeterminacies in dictionaries and their definitions, the choice among different dictionaries and definitions must subject to the context of the case at hand and judicial discretion. Dictionary definitions can provide useful, but not conclusive or exclusive, aid or guideline for judges. Since dictionaries can only provide non-contextual interpretation, judges must seek other materials beyond dictionaries. External materials, such as legislative purpose, legislative history, existing precedents, and social experience, can provide much more concrete and accurate meanings. The analysis of practice and theory signifies that adjudication is a process which is much more complex than mere looking a word up in dictionaries. Dictionary definitions can be employed by courts as the start point, not the end point or last criterion, for ascertaining the meaning of word (s) at issue.