Definition
Construction has two distinct legal meanings that appear across different bodies of law and must be distinguished by context.
1. INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL INSTRUMENTS: In its primary legal sense, construction is the process of determining the meaning, scope, or legal effect of ambiguous or obscure language in a statute, contract, will, deed, or other written instrument. It involves applying rules of reasoning — drawing on surrounding circumstances, related provisions, the instrument's purpose, and established canons — to resolve uncertainty about what words mean or how they apply to a given situation. Construction is the court's work: extracting operative legal meaning from language that does not resolve itself on its face.
2. PHYSICAL BUILDING AND ERECTION: In its secondary legal sense, construction refers to the physical act of building, assembling, or erecting a structure. This meaning governs in contract law (construction contracts), lien law (mechanics' and materialmen's liens), regulatory law (building permits, zoning), and arbitration (construction disputes). The legal significance here attaches to who performed the work, whether the work was completed or defective, and what remedies attach to breach.
The two meanings rarely overlap but can appear in the same transaction — for example, when a court must interpret (construe) an ambiguous construction contract.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The process of constructing; the trade of building structures; anything that has been constructed; also, the act or result of construing the meaning of something.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The process or art of constructing; the act of building or erection; also the arrangement and connection of words in a sentence; syntactical arrangement.
Both common-language sources capture both meanings, but their emphasis is the reverse of legal usage. In ordinary English, the physical building sense leads. In law, construction as legal interpretation is the primary term of art, carrying centuries of developed doctrine — canons of construction, strict construction, liberal construction, constitutional construction — that have no counterpart in the trade sense.
Common Confusion
CONSTRUCTION VS. INTERPRETATION
Courts and commentators have long debated whether construction and interpretation are synonymous or distinct. One influential view holds that interpretation determines the meaning of words as the parties used them, while construction determines the legal effect of that meaning when applied to facts not clearly within the text. In practice, most courts use the terms interchangeably. Researchers should not assume historical sources that treat them as distinct are applying the same distinction, or that modern courts follow the same line.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
STRICT CONSTRUCTION: Reading statutory or constitutional text narrowly, limiting its reach to what the words clearly and literally cover. Associated with criminal statutes (where ambiguity favors the defendant) and grants of governmental power.
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION: Reading text broadly to give full effect to the instrument's apparent purpose or remedial intent. Associated with remedial statutes and provisions intended to protect disfavored parties.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION: The process of determining the meaning and scope of constitutional provisions, particularly where text is abstract or where framers' intent is disputed. Distinct from constitutional interpretation in some scholarly usage, though courts rarely separate them.
CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION: Interpretation of a statute or instrument based on the understanding of those who enacted or executed it at the time of its creation. Frequently invoked to give weight to early administrative practice or legislative history.
CONSTRUCTION OF LAW: A fixed rule by which a legal consequence follows automatically from certain acts or words, without reference to actual intent. Distinct from construction of instruments — here, the law itself supplies the meaning regardless of what the parties meant.
Why It Matters in Research
The interpretive and physical-building senses of construction generate almost entirely separate bodies of law, but they appear under the same headword in historical dictionaries and indexes, requiring care when navigating the corpus.
For interpretation research: The most consequential doctrinal territory is the canon structure — the rules courts use to guide construction. These canons shifted significantly between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Historical sources may describe canons as binding rules; modern courts treat most as presumptions or tie-breakers. Researchers tracing how a particular statute or constitutional provision has been read over time must track not only the holdings but the canon applied, because the same words may be construed very differently under strict versus liberal frameworks.
The distinction between construction and interpretation in historical sources is a research trap. Burrill treats them as analytically distinct; Black's largely elides the difference. When a historical source says a court "interpreted" versus "construed" a provision, do not assume the author is making a technical distinction — check the surrounding context.
Constitutional construction is a particularly active area in the Law Mind corpus. Anderson's Dictionary of Law material touches the boundary between legislative discretion and judicial review, relevant to research on early constitutional construction doctrine.
For physical construction research: Lien law is the primary legal context. Rapalje & Lawrence's entry explicitly flags statutory phrases like "construction and completion" (of a railroad) and "construction and repairs" (in vessel lien statutes) as terms requiring definitional precision because the statute's coverage turned on whether the work qualified. Researchers examining mechanics' lien statutes, construction contracts, or surety bonds should expect that the legal definition of "construction" in any given jurisdiction may be narrower or broader than the common-language sense and may be fixed by statutory language rather than common law.
The constructive doctrine entries in the Law Mind corpus — constructive discharge, constructive receipt, constructive notice — are related by etymology but not by doctrine. They use "constructive" to mean "treated as if, by operation of law," which is the Construction of Law subtype, not physical building or textual interpretation. Do not conflate these.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources converge on the interpretive meaning as primary but vary in how they frame its boundaries.
Black's Law Dictionary (both editions) offers the most complete doctrinal definition, describing construction as a process that operates "in the light derived from extraneous connected circumstances or laws or writings bearing upon the same or connected matter" — an explicit acknowledgment that construction goes beyond the four corners of the instrument. This formulation supports the liberal construction tradition.
Burrill's Law Dictionary supplies the richest analytical account, distinguishing construction as "a putting together of the words of an instrument" through "a process of inference" from mere reading, and drawing the institutional line cleanly: courts give construction to written instruments; juries determine the meaning of words as ordinary speakers use them. This division tracks a recurring doctrinal question — what is a question of law for the court versus a question of fact for the jury — that appears throughout contract and will construction cases.
Rapalje & Lawrence takes a more functional approach, defining construction as "the process of ascertaining the meaning of a written document" and then pivoting immediately to statutory phrase construction, illustrating how the term operated in lien and railroad law. Their treatment of "Construction of Law" as a "fixed or arbitrary rule" is the clearest historical statement of that subtype.
Anderson's Dictionary of Law excerpt, though centered on constitutional law context, reflects the broader doctrinal concern about the limits of interpretive authority — who construes, and how far that power extends — which is the animating question behind constitutional construction doctrine.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary excerpt as supplied does not bear on construction in either sense; the excerpt appears to be from the contracts entry. Researchers should consult Bouvier's construction entry directly.
Jurisdictional Note
Canons of construction vary by jurisdiction and by the type of instrument being construed. Many states have codified rules of statutory construction that displace or supplement common-law canons; federal courts apply their own evolving canon structure. For physical construction, the definition of compensable "construction" under mechanics' lien statutes is jurisdiction-specific and often turns on whether design, supervision, or off-site fabrication qualifies — a question that historical lien cases resolved inconsistently.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Construction Arbitration — AAA Construction Rules, Mandatory Arbitration Clauses, and Consolidation (The Law Mind Real Estate Transactions & Construction Encyclopedia) [physical construction sense]
Constructive Discharge (The Law Mind Employment & Labor Law Encyclopedia) [constructive doctrine — Construction of Law sense]
Constructive Receipt Doctrine (The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia) [constructive doctrine — Construction of Law sense]