In general, no
There are a limited number of words and phrases that have, through usage and custom, acquired specific legal meanings that may be distinct from their meaning in general usage. However, by and large, the meaning of words and phrases is for the community of language speakers in a particular time and place to decide.
When a court must interpret language, that will usually be their guiding principle. Depending on the specifics of the case, they may need to decide what the words mean here and now, or there and then, but they are always guided by the society of language speakers. Of course, the courts are part of this society so this is a two way street - which brings us back to paragraph 1.
When a court has to decide on the meaning of a contemporary or near contemporary document, this rarely presents a problem - the words mean what the words mean. When interpreting a historical document, like a Constitution, the court has to decide if the meaning has changed between then and now, and, if so, what meaning to use.
Bear in mind that the meaning of words only matter to the extent that they argue material to the case at hand. For example, consider the phrase “free-range eggs”. A marketer is entitled to use that phrase so long as it doesn’t violate the law. What law? Typically a law against misleading and deceptive conduct. What is is a “free-range egg”? It is an egg that a reasonable person would consider, in all the relevant circumstances, to be “free-range”. Does the law have a role in defining the term? No. Does it have a role in deciding if a particular egg is or in sort free range? Absolutely.
Bear in mind that we are on the type of knife edge between whether a common law court establishes a law or discovers a law that already existed. A court does not define words in exactly the same way a dictionary doesn’t - they simply report the definitions that already exist.