Cover not available

In:Legal Pragmatics
Edited by Dennis Kurzon and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288] 2018
► pp. 117–130

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 6
Interpreting or in legal texts

 | Universities of Genoa and Birmingham
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.06vis
Abstract
Reconstructing the meaning of a text is a complex operation, involving linguistic, situational, inter-textual, cognitive, cultural, and ideological parameters. Due to a well-known polarization in contemporary linguistic theory, the interpretation process spans between an abstract “linguistic” meaning and a concrete “communicative” meaning. The former is the result of combining the meanings of the lexical units following the rules of syntax and punctuation, while the latter results from inferential processes, where linguistic meaning is taken as a point of departure and enriched with further information. The distinction between linguistic and communicative meaning maps onto the boundary between semantics and pragmatics, the conventional meaning of linguistic units vs. the meaning inferred through the interaction of linguistic meaning with context (Hansen 2008: 12ff.; Visconti 2014: 247ff.).
This chapter focuses on court decisions, a type of text in decisions, the interplay between semantics and pragmatics is particularly striking. It will investigate the way in which the interpreter, i.e. the judge, takes the linguistic meaning as an input (a set of instructions) and enriches it with further information by means of prepositions or connectives, which are often neglected in the legal literature, despite playing a crucial role in steering the interpretation.
Judges often engage in various types of linguistic analysis. The United States Supreme Court, for example, has exhibited both surprising linguistic acumen and, on the other hand, woeful disregard for how language operates in real life situations. Of course, there is not always a single correct linguistic analysis of legislative texts or conspiratorial conversations. Additionally, factors other than language are often relevant in determining the meaning of legal language; these factors are particularly relevant when the text is incomplete or ambiguous. But when interpreting a text, be it statutory or conversational, a careful linguistic analysis should always be the point of departure.(Peter M. Tiersma, “The Judge as Linguist”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 27: 269, 1993, p. 283)
(Peter M. Tiersma, “The Judge as Linguist”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 27: 269, 1993, p. 283)
Article outline
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2.The ‘scaffolding’
    • 2.1Connectives
      • 2.1.1 Or
  • 3. Or in European and American courts
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Aher, Martin. 2013. “Deontic Contexts and the Interpretation of Disjunction in Legal Discourse”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 58/1: 13–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, Layman E. 1957. “Symbolic Logic: A Razor-Edged Tool for Drafting and Interpreting Legal Documents”. Yale Law Journal 66: 833–879. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira and Caterina Mauri (forthcoming), “Why use ‘or’?”. Linguistics.
Baaij, Cornelis J. W. 2012. “Fifty Years of Multilingual Interpretation in the European Union”. In Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, ed. by Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma, 217–234. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bobbio, Norberto. 1950. “Scienza del diritto e analisi del linguaggio”. Rivista Trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 4: 342–367.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald. 1991. “Koordinierende Konjunktionen”. In Semantik/Semantics. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 597–623. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1968. Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Von Fintel, Kai and Lisa Matthewson. 1997. “Universals in Semantics”, The Linguistic Review 25/1–2: 139–201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2008. Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreri, Silvia. In press. “Multilingual Interpretation of European Union law”. In Handbook of Communication in the Legal Sphere, ed. by Jacqueline Visconti (in collaboration with Monika Rathert). De Gruyter Mouton.
Gambaro, Antonio. 2007. “Interpretation of Multilingual Legislative Texts”. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 11/3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, John Payne and Peter Peterson. 2002. “Coordination and Supplementation”. In Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum, 1273–1362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzotti, Emilio. 1999. “Alternative”. In Linguistica Testuale Comparativa, ed. by Francesco Sabatini and Gunver Skytte. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Ulrike Brauße, Eva Breindl and Ulrich H. Waßner. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren: Linguistiche Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. 1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
In press. “The Interpretation of laws”. In Handbook of Communication in the Legal Sphere, ed. by Jacqueline Visconti (in collaboration with Monika Rathert). De Gruyter Mouton.
Snell, John. 1976. “Trouble on Oiled Waters. Statutory Interpretation”. The Modern Law Review 39/4: 402–413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. “Anyway, that’s a Pretty Ugly Design: On Why Subjectification is a Major Type of Change”. Lecture given at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (26 April 2010).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline. 2013. “European Integration: Connectives in EU Legislation”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 23/1: 44–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Sample of Comparative Text Analysis on Common European Sales Law”. In Translating the DCFR and Drafting the CESL, ed. by Barbara Pasa and Lucia Morra, 247–260. Sellier European Law Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. In preparation. Studi su testi giuridici. Accademia della Crusca.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lamond, Ian R
2019. Leisure as an object of governmental policy in UK elections: 1945 to 1983. Leisure/Loisir 43:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue