Gémar, J.-C. et N. Kasirer (dir.) (2005): Jurilinguistique: entre langues et droits. Jurilinguistics: Between Law and Language, Montréal, Thémis/Bruylant, 596 p.

However, such dissenting opinions are rare. The contribution terminology, lexicology, semantics and pragmatics could make to legal discourse has been gradually acknowledged (Levi: 1982) and was firmly underscored in Canada with the publication some twenty-five years ago of Language du droit et traduction. Essais de jurilinguistique under the editorship of Jean-Caude Gémar (1982). This work distinguishes itself from this earlier tome in the range of legal instruments covered, the diversity of aspects of the relationship between language and law examined and in its international dimension. The positivist tendancy to highlight legislation at the expense of other manifestations of the law is less pronounced here. The 1982 work was divided into two parts: Essais de description du langage du droit and Traduction et langage du droit: moyens et techniques. A bipartite division is also present in Jurilinguistique: Part One: Laws, Languages: Jurilinguistic Perspectives and Part Two: Laws, Languages: Jurilinguistics Applications. These broader divisions are sub-divided into subsections: Laws, Languages Compared, Languages and Legal Systems reconfigured, etc. There is a total of 32 articles framed by a Foreword and an Afterword penned by each of the editors. I do not propose here to discuss each article but rather to suggest something of the flavour of the volume by analyzing four representative articles. In his excellent article “Réflexion autour des dictionnaires de droit civil,” Mathieu Devinat (2005: 321) explores the notion of meaning in civil law dictionaries. He destroys the myth that civil law terminology has a fixed official meaning that is ready to be plucked ‘prêt à cueillir’ (325). He goes on to bemoan the lack of sources cited in civil law dictionaries. He contrasts this situation with the practice in common law dictionaries where “what serves as a definition is sometimes no more than a description of the legal regime in which the term is set, a citation from a judgment, or an extract from a statute” (my translation) (327). The meaning of words is thus tightly bound up with the legal actors who use them. He also points out that language in the hands of legal practitioners is often manipulated for specific purposes. One is reminded of Melinkoff’s observation: “the adversary system has no consistent regard for precision. A lawyer arguing to a jury or to a judge is more concerned with what will persuade than what is precise” (1983-1984: 440). What the author perceives as a strength of Common law dictionaries, i.e., the dynamic and plural nature of meaning in their definitions can, however, also be a vice. Witness the following remark under contract in Ballentine’s law dictionary: “nothing less than the whole body of applicable precedent will suffice for the purpose of definition.” Devinat argues that an examination of law in practise reveals that civil terms attract many meanings. The prevailing preference for one official meaning is linked to the particular epistemic and philosophical traditions of civil law. The author concludes on a cautionary note, reminding the reader that legal meaning as found in dictionaries is merely one of many possible definitions. He argues in favour of what Cornu called the ‘potentialité lexicale’ or as another author expressed it “words lose their singular meaning so that all their possible meanings can be explored” (Weis 1987-1988: 972). A less prominent aspect of legal terminology is the subject of Heikki Mattila’s contribution in this volume. The author explores the symbolic function of legal Latin in legal contexts (courtrooms, rhetorics etc) and the role of legal Latin in the communication between lawyers. It is this second aspect that will concern us here. This article is particularly welcome …