- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Ships from: Lincolnton, NC
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Ships from: Chatham, NJ
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
This ideal companion to standard law dictionaries is the definitive guide to style and usage for the legal writer.
"Even law libraries that already own the first edition should benefit from Garner's new edition."--Law Library Journal
"Assiduous use of the newly revised Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage will improve mediocre legal writing and enhance good documents. Libraries that serve the legal community and people who read what lawyers write should add this work to their reference collections."--RQ
"The first edition of this book has been praised around the world as both the most reliable guide to legal usage and the most fascinating to read. The second edition outdoes even its predecessor, with more depth, more illustrative quotations, and more proof of Garner's lively literary style. He has surely established himself as the world's leading authority on the language of the law."--Charles Alan Wright
"The well-received Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage has been updated in this superior second edition....Even libraries that have the first edition should consider this new one, which is highly recommended for any law collection in public or academic libraries."--RBB/Booklist
"This dictionary sets the standard for legal usage. It is absolutely indispensable for law libraries, lawyers, and judges, and a wonderful addition to all academic and public library reference collections."--Library Journal
"An impressive enhancement of the original edition....Garner's approach to legal language makes this resource essential to law and social science collections and to all levels of readers, including lawyers."--Choice
"Keep a copy of this book where you write briefs. You will use A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, Second Edition, again and again with confidence and delight. This is one of the best books ever written for lawyers."--The Appellate Practice Journal and Update
"This dictionary is not only useful, it is actually fun to browse in. Its entries are admirably clear and direct, and often clever. If used regularly by enough lawyers, it could put an end to legalese."--The Federal Lawyer
"The first edition was highly regarded; this new edition is even better."--Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing
"Every administrative law judge should have the 9000 entries in this 948-page A-Z law dictionary/style guide handy as they write and edit decisions. This desk reference will assist greatly in clear thinking and writing."--National Association of Administrative Law Judges Newsletter
One perennial question emerges when people ask about grammar: "What grammar book do you recommend?" What the person really wants isn't a grammar at all, but a good dictionary of usage. This underappreciated genre has alphabetical listings of all the most common trouble spots in the language. It's partly grammar ("fused participles"), partly word choice ("self-deprecating" vs. "self-depreciating"), and sometimes a mixture of the two ("It's me" vs. "It's I"). There are dozens of essays on subjects as diverse as Airlinese, Jargon, Punctuation, and Subject-Verb Agreement.
The language is shifting under your very tongue in ways that might surprise you. A Dictionary of Modern American Usage is intended to divert and entertain while providing guidance on where to stand if you want to avoid linguistic fault lines. My guidance is a blend of the traditional and the modern. I favor keeping our continuity with the past without letting the language become petrified. And I try to be down-to-earth. So forget "It's I."
How did I get into this?
At the age of 15, I realized that the use of the English language was my main intellectual interest. That being so, David Foster Wallace says in Harper's magazine that I must have been "repeatedly and savagely wedgied" as a teenager. Not so -- though I take his point. Actually, I kept my long forays to the college library a little secret within the family and still lettered in golf, led the high school band as drum major, and acted in school plays. By my junior year, when I had acquired the habit of occasionally using big words ("epizeuxis" and "ignoratio elenchi" were among my favorites), I was too big for the kind of abuse Wallace imagines. It took a few more years for me to outgrow this annoying habit of using big words, but in the meantime I worked assiduously to build my vocabulary.
And I had discovered my favorite literary genre: the dictionary of usage. H. W. Fowler, Wilson Follett, Theodore Bernstein, and Eric Partridge had become my literary heroes. By the time I was ready for college, I had essentially memorized everything that these writers had said about English usage -- in the same way that other kids memorize sports stats or car models. Not just any linguistic facts interested me: They had to be genuinely useful facts. They had to help me (or anyone) write better.
In college, studying liberal arts at the University of Texas, I was drawn to courses on literature, rhetoric, literary criticism, and the history of the English language. My plan was still, as it had been in high school, to become a lawyer and use my rhetorical skills within the law. But my success in publishing articles on Shakespearean language -- and the encouragement of my undergraduate mentors, the Shakespearean specialist John W. Velz and the linguistic historian Thomas Cable -- led me to flirt with pursuing a Ph.D. in English, with a focus on lexicography. I almost went that route.
But no. My fiancée (now my wife), a graduate student in political science, said she was convinced that I was meant to be a lawyer -- not an English professor. I agreed. When law school began, I was immediately struck by how many archaic phrases -- Elizabethan phrases -- were popping up in the judicial decisions I was reading. I went to the library to see what scholars had written about legal language, found very little to my liking, and immediately decided to write a book about legal language. Within the first week of law school, I had named it A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. I wanted it to do for lawyers what H. W. Fowler had done for writers at large.
I ended up founding LawProse, Inc., which provides seminars for lawyers on brief writing and contract drafting. I wrote or edited more books on law and language, most notably The Elements of Legal Style and Black's Law Dictionary. I've now produced four editions of Black's -- the unabridged deluxe, the regular unabridged, the abridged, and the pocket. My whole approach to legal lexicography has been to try to make the law as accessible as possible to everyone -- to persuade lawyers that it's not in their best interests to use highfalutin jargon and gobbledygook. After all, avoiding these bad habits promotes clear thinking.
But my first love is the English language -- not just the legal part of the English language. So when Oxford asked me to write a dictionary of American usage, I was delighted at the prospect of broadening my horizons and dealing with the English language as a whole. Since I was following Fowler's model, I called it A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. The idea was to provide a guide for educated Americans who want an answer to the question, "Can I say this and still have credibility with readers and listeners?" My intended readers, quite simply, are educated people -- students, businesspeople, professors, novelists, nonfiction writers, newscasters, you name it -- who want authoritative guidance on where the language stands today.
"May I split an infinitive?" (Yes, but first you really need to know what one is.) "May I split a verb phrase?" (You'd better: Any other placement is awkward. And grammarians have consistently said -- there's a split!-- this since 1782!) "May I end a sentence with a preposition?" (If you want to. I have a two-page essay on the subject.) "Should I use the serial comma?" (Yes, unless you're a journalist.) On and on the questions go. My rulings -- since I'm playing the role of judge -- add up to a kind of linguistic jurisprudence. Like any judge, I have biases. Mine are in favor of clarity, simplicity, and credibility. (Bryan A. Garner)