Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review Article of Implicatures Within Legal Language by Izabela Skoczeń (Springer 2019)

  • Book Review
  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between legal interpretation and ordinary understanding has raised growing interest among legal scholars. According to the mainstream view, law is a communicative phenomenon and, therefore, the best theory of ordinary communication should also explain and guide legal interpretation. Certainly, it is very controversial which theory is the best one, but, even if there are many candidates, Grice’s conversation model has attracted a lot of attention. Some legal scholars claim that Grice’s theory of conversational maxims should be applied in legal domain, while others dispute this claim. Izabela Skoczeń’s book, Implicatures within legal language provides an original contribution to this ongoing debate. Through an interdisciplinary approach that engages with the most recent advances in Pragmatics as well as with the most popular legal approaches, Skoczeń recasts Grice’s theory of conversational implicatures in order to explain the mechanisms behind court decisions. This review article provides a critical examination of Skoczeń’s book, highlighting its strengths as well as its problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Archer, Dawn. 2011. Cross-examining lawyers, facework and the adversarial courtroom. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3216–3230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Asgeirsson, Hrafn. 2017. On the possibility of non-literal legislative speech. In Pragmatics and law. Practical and theoretical perspectives, ed. Francesca Poggi and Alessandro Capone, 67–101. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Baude, William, and Stephen E. Sachs. 2017. The law of interpretation. Harvard Law Journal 130: 1081–1147.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carston, Robyn. 2013. Legal texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory. In Law and language: Current legal issues 15, ed. Michael Freeman and Fiona Smith, 8–33. Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1545–1579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ekins, Richard. 2012. The nature of legislative intent. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Grice, Paul H. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics, ed. Deborah Schiffrin, 11–42. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton, and Giovanni Sartor. 2018. Pragmatic maxims and presuppositions in legal interpretation. Law and Philosophy 37: 69–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Marmor, Andrei. 2007. What does the law say? Semantics and pragmatics in statutory language. Analisi e diritto 2007: 127–140.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Marmor, Andrei. 2008. The pragmatics of legal language. Ratio Juris 21: 423–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Marmor, Andrei. 2011. Can law imply more than it says? On some pragmatic aspects of strategic speech. In Philosophical foundations of the language in the law, ed. Andrei Marmor and Scott Soames, 83–104. Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Miller, Geoffrey P. 1990. Pragmatics and the maxims of interpretation. Wisconsin Law Review 1990: 1179–1227.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Poggi, Francesca. 2018. Conversational implicatures and legal interpretation. On the difference between conversational maxims and legal interpretative criteria. Analisi e diritto 2018 (2): 39–66.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sinclair, M.B.W. 1985. Law and language. The role of pragmatics in statutory interpretation. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 46: 373–420.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Izabela, Skoczeń. 2019. Implicatures within legal language. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Slocum, Brian C. 2016. Conversational implicatures and legal texts. Ratio Juris 29: 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in interaction. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang, Dan. 2015. Conversational analysis in courtroom discourse. In Proceedings of international conference on education, management, commerce and society. https://doi.org/10.2991/emcs-15.2015.111.

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Harmonia, Polish National Centre for Science (Grant No. 2018/30/M/HS5/00254).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department “Cesare Beccaria”, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy

    Francesca Poggi

Authors
  1. Francesca Poggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Poggi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Poggi, F. Review Article of Implicatures Within Legal Language by Izabela Skoczeń (Springer 2019). Int J Semiot Law 33, 1199–1205 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09729-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09729-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation