Dark Stool & Red Wine

Who controls the meaning of words? And what effect does this control over our laws, "declaration of the sovereign will" of our nation?

Castilian professor Jaime Gonzalez says in El Mercurio that "the legislature or who enforces the law" must give the words of the legislation the meaning assigned to them Dictionary Royal English Academy, "admitting no other interpretation or variation." As he spoke, Professor González presents an extremely widespread view in the legal community itself. Lawyers often quoted in his writings, and the judges in their judgments, the definitions contained in the text, assuming that they express the "natural and obvious meaning" of words that according to Article 20 of the Civil Code should be assigned.

Undoubtedly, the existence of a Dictionary widely known and whose preparation is entrusted to "experts" magic word that brings to power with knowledge, simplifies and expedites the determination of what is natural and obvious sense the words of Castilian. And lawyers and judges, whose time is consumed by the travails of professional practice, we can expect a greater emphasis on questions socio-linguistic complexity as determining how language is used effectively. However, trying to transform this effective practice in a legal requirement, saying it is not acceptable any interpretation other than the Dictionary of the English Royal Academy, is a profound error.

The most important reason to support this comes from democratic theory. Chile is a democratic republic, where sovereignty resides in the nation and the exercise lies with the people and authorities. If we remember that define the content of these formidable power delivery to the owner of this allocation, then a democratic republic can not but recognize that power to the people, through their everyday speech, and its authorities, particularly to the legislator. Society and the legislature, not the dictionary of the Royal Academy, then, are those who control the meaning of words in a democracy. Some, like Savigny, who would go further and argue that in every historical era, not only in the Democratic-law is an emanation of social customs, such as language, and that they evolve according to the constant evolution of character Village.

If these constitutional arguments failed to convince people of concrete thinking, then could be added as a corollary of what has been said that neither the Civil Code or any other binding legal text gives the definitions of any dictionary. On the contrary, the aforementioned Article 20 supports the arguments already presented: the "natural and obvious meaning" to be found in "the general use of the same words" in the definitions that the legislature has given them "specifically for certain matters ".