Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Semiotics of Law, Juridicity and Legal System: Some Observations and Clarifications of a Theoretical Concept

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

Abstract

This paper presents a specific concept of the legal system, bringing a contribution to the Theory of Law, from the line of analysis of the Semiotics of Law. The entire methodological approach of this concept is based on the contributions of the École de Paris, from a theoretical-semiotic perspective derived from the studies of Algirdas Julien Greimas. The analysis seeks to further and qualify previous studies and publications, and focuses on the task of presenting the concept of juridicity, deriving the description of the concept of the legal system from it, understood as a set of connections between legal texts. Consequently, the paper presents a Mesh Model for the description of the legal system, replacing the positivist concept of the Pyramid Model, through restoring the relationship between Law and Moral, between Law and Society and Law and Justice. Throughout the theoretical explanation, the paper tries to trace, develop and qualify the main points with arguments that distinguish the operation of the legal system, such as the concentric movement, micro-universes of meaning, discursive practices, the task of legal actors, dynamic inter-textuality, the role of interpretation, the process of the production of legal meaning and the search for textual justice.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This paper is the result of some new observations presented and discussed at the Programme of the 20th International Round Table for the Semiotics of Law: the Limits of Law, Workshop 10, University of Coimbra (Trindade College), Portugal, in 24 May 2019.

  2. “L´objet de la sémiotique, disions-nous, c´est la signification” “The object of semiotics, we used to say, is signification” [37]: 08, translation].

  3. “Le positivisme de Greimas est purement méthodologique” “Greimas's positivism is purely methodological” [30: 06, translation].

  4. See [2:15] and [3: 20] and [11: 12–35].

  5. See [8: 423–455].

  6. See [6: 21–84].

  7. These ideas here attain broader development and qualification. In its first version, these characteristics were presented in the paper written by me: [8: 423–455].

  8. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Philosophy and General Theory of Law, Faculty of Law, University of São Paulo (USP, Brazil).

  9. See [4: 10].

  10. See [9: 157–169].

  11. See [16, 25, 33, 42, 51]

  12. See [12: 10–55]. See more about the peircean conceptions [43, 44].

  13. See [19, 21, 22, 24, 45].

  14. See Chapter 1 [7: 50–60].

  15. See [26: 17–50].

  16. See [10].

  17. See especially these titles: Legal Language (7.ed., 2017)—in the original title in Portuguese, Linguagem Jurídica: semiótica, discurso e direito [5: 21–84]; See Introduction to law: humanism, democracy and justice (2018)—in the original title in Portuguese, Introdução ao estudo do Direito: humanismo, democracia e justiça (2.ed., 2019), especially Chapters 6.4 to 6.4.5 [7: 439–450]; See, also, the more recent article The concept of law and the concept of legal system: an approach from the Legal Semiotics perspective—in the original title in Portuguese, O conceito de direito e o conceito de sistema jurídico: uma abordagem a partir da Semiótica Jurídica [8: 423–455].

  18. The term juridicity also seems to be used with another meaning in the remarkable book written by Greimas and Landowski. See [20: 75].

  19. Gérard Timsit argues something relevant in this matter: “Science du droit? Je préfèrerais dire: de la juridicité. Car il n’y a pas de droit en soi. Il y a en revanche une juridicité, un mécanisme d’accession de la norme à la juridicité par la combinaison des phénomènes de pré- de co- et de sur-détermination, chacun d’eux lié à l’un des noms de la loi - parole, écriture et silence” [50: 462].

  20. See [6: 72–84].

  21. See [6: 7– translated from the Portuguese].

  22. See [6: 78—translated from the Portuguese].

  23. See [6: 84—translated from the Portuguese].

  24. “In this context, there is much interesting work to be done. Some of the sources of inspiration of Critical Legal Studies adopt quite explicit semiotic theories. Here, the Frankfurt School in general and Habermas in particular clearly stand out. The latter identifies the central concern of critical theory as being "society as a system of action by human beings, who communicate through speech and thus must realise social intercourse within the context of conscious communication"” [32: 185].

  25. See in the work of Joseph Courtés [14: 43]; see too [5].

  26. This concept was discussed in another previous publication. In this respect, see Bittar [8: 440].

  27. In the book Sens et textualité, it is possible to see that François Rastier argues: “L´usage d´une langue est par excellence une activité sociale, si bien que toute situation de communication est déterminée par une pratique sociale qui l´instaure et la contraint” [47: 39].

  28. It is possible to find great reflections about this topic in the work La sociéte réfléchi, written by Éric Landowski. See [36: 15–65]. See too the arguments from Algirdas J. Greimas and J. Courtés: “A la Sociosémiotique - dans la mesure où une telle distinction terminologique puisse avoir quelque utilité - serait réservé le vaste domaine des connotations sociales,…” [23: 356].

  29. “In other words, it should contribute to a better understanding of the way law makes sense as a social activity” [35: 330].

  30. “Here, I present primarily the semiotics of the Greimasian school, which is based upon a non-referential theory of meaning. It holds that meaning consists of relations within a particular system of signification, and does not depend upon a relationship of reference to the outside world” [31: 27].

  31. “Le lien unissant le significant au signifié est arbitraire, ou encore, puisque nous entendons par signe le total résultant de l´association d´un significant à un signifié, nous pouvons dire plus simplement: le signe linguistique est arbitraire” “The link between the significant and the signified is arbitrary, or, because we understand a sign to mean the total resulting from the association of a significant with a signified, we can say more simply: the linguistic sign is arbitrary" (49: 100, translation).

  32. “La linguistique d´inspiration saussurienne, on le sait, considère l´exclusion du referent comme la condition necessaire de son exercice” “It is well known that Saussure-inspired linguistics considers the exclusion of the referent as a necessary condition for its exercise" (23: 350, translation).

  33. See [17: 183].

  34. In this perspective, Pierre Moor argues that: “…le système juridique est un ensemble formé de normes - l’ordre juridique - et géré par des acteurs - les autorités, les corporations de juristes” [40: 51].

  35. “Such groups are sometimes called ‘groupes semiotiques’ - networks of people who communicate messages to each other, using codes and other semiotic devices specific to those groups” [31: 31].

  36. This point is very important to ensure that all the system of meanings works in the same way. About this, see [18: 132 and 166–220].

  37. This illustration appears, for the first time, in the book written by me: [7: 450].

  38. Pierre Moor points out that this is a central point to the contemporary Rule of Law: “Dans la plupart des États de droit, cette souvernaité se manifeste dans un texte spécial, la Constitution, qui formalize le sommet de la hiérarchie” [40: 70].

  39. See [28: 11].

  40. See [34: 10–45].

  41. “We have in mind a specific sphere, possessing signs, which are assigned to the enclosed space. Only within such a space is it possible for communicative processes and the creation of new information to be realized” [39: 207].

  42. See [27: 22 and 247].

  43. See [1: 34].

  44. See [48: 101–102].

  45. See [52: 30].

  46. “De fait, la distribution de rôles que nous venons de repérer constitue la copie conforme des schémas les plus élémentaires de la grammaire narrative” “In fact, the role distribution we have just identified is an exact copy of the most elementary patterns of narrative grammar” [37: 03, translation].

  47. See [40: 207].

  48. The ideas of François Rastier are very clear in this topic: “À chaque type de pratique sociale est associé un type d´usage linguistique que l´on peut appeler discours: ainsi des discours juridique, politique, médical, etc.” [47: 39].

  49. Here, a very similar understanding between my conception and the conception of Pierre Moor: “Nous pouvons dire que le texte est un ensemble de mots - ou de signes—qu’il articule les uns aux autres lexicalement et syntaxiquement afin qu´un sens leur soit conféré dans l´ensemble qu´ils forment: autrement dit: une proposition. Le texte revêt dont une matérialité parce que les signes s´incrivent nécessairement (…)” [40: 55].

  50. “Production juridique is viewed by Greimas/Landowski as a syntactic process. The act of naming in legislation itself serves as a sign in legal discourse” [31: 34].

  51. “Vérification juridique is an activity of the judge” [31: 35].

  52. “Los juristas saben que la significación de un texto legal, de un reglamento o de una circular, de una sentencia o hasta los términos de un contrato está lejos de ser siempre clara, imediata y unívoca” [38: 78].

  53. See [34: 310].

  54. In this respect, see [6].

  55. See [34: 310–315].

  56. “Greimas/Landowski use the phrase production juridique for the establishment of a semiotic object, or objects, bearing signification within legal discourse. Most commonly, this takes the form of the transformation of elements from the natural language to legal discourse” [31: 33].

  57. “Culture not only creates its internal organization, but also its own type of external disorganization” [39: 212].

  58. This concept is extracted from the ideas of Algirdas J. Greimas and Joseph Courtés: “En métasémiotique scientifique, on donne le nom d’automate ou sujet opérateur quelconque (ou “neutre”) en possession d’un ensemble de règles explicites et d’un ordre contraignant d’application des règles (ou d’exécution des instructions)” [23: 24].

  59. In this respect, see [41: 43–65].

  60. “… on peut identifier le concept de discours avec celui de procès sémiotique, et considérer comme relevant de la théorie du discours la totalité des faits sémiotiques (rélations, unités, opérations, etc.) situés sur l’axe syntagmatique du langage” [23: 102].

  61. “El órgano legislativo, como actor, ejerce exclusivamente el primero de los dos roles actanciales considerados: él legisla pero no juzga, él anuncia la regla, en el modo general e impersonal, garantiza su efectividad previendo las modalidades de su sanción, pero su rol termina ahí” [38: 101].

  62. “Legal philosophers commonly account for the application of law in terms of "normative syllogism". The major premise states the legal rule: in all cases p, consequences q ought to follow. The minor premise is a categorization of the facts of the particular case being adjudicated: this is a case of p. The conclusion therefore follows: consequence q ought here to be applied. As argued in Chapter Two, there are a number of reasons why this model of legal adjudication ought to be rejected” [31: 89].

  63. See [31: 30–32].

  64. This concept is detached from the ideas of François Rastier, when he says that: “Plusieurs types de systems sont à l´oeuvre dans tout text: (i) la langue fonctionnelle (…); (ii) un sociolecte (…); (iii) l´idiolecte (…)” [46: 39].

  65. See [34: 310].

  66. See [15: 46].

  67. It is very clear the thesis of Pierre Moor: “Mais la norme? On dira que c´est le sens du texte” [40: 71].

  68. “Dans une analyse herméneutique, on dira que le texte avait pour origine un projet fondateur qui a animé son auteur à vouloir l´émettre” [40: 59].

  69. “Il y a, symétriquement, un projet de l’acte de lecture, élément du contexte de la réception” [40: 59].

  70. “Il y a lieu alors à confrontation entre le texte originaire (l´objet de la première lecture) et le texte second (le produit de cette lecture)” [40: 75].

  71. Algirdas J. Greimas and J. Courtés make an important difference in this topic: “L’herméneutique désigne généralement l’interprétation, ou sens courant et non pas sémiotique, de textes essentiellement philosophiques et réligieux. Il s’agit d’une discipline relativement voisine de la sémiotique…” [23: 171].

  72. In the conception of Umberto Eco, see [17].

  73. “Les théorisations de l’interprétation oscillent entre deux extrêmes, selon la place et la fonction qu’elles assignent à la norme : soit celle-ci, en tant que norme générale, est le fondement même de l’application du droit – théorie normativiste – soit, en tant que succession de jugements, elle est le produit de l’exercice de la fonction judiciaire – théorie réaliste” [40: 237].

  74. With these clarifications: “On appelle contexte l’ensemble du texte qui précède et/ou qui accompagne l’unité syntagmatique considérée, et dont dépend la signification” [23: 66].

  75. On this matter, see [20 and 29].

  76. See [20: 84]; See too [23: 7].

  77. “Esta instancia, a diferencia de los actantes sujetos propriamente dichos, no tende diretamente hacia la acción sino a calificar (y por ello a orientar y sancionar) las acciones, reales o posibles, de los Sujetos” [38: 92].

  78. See [13: 216–217].

  79. See [38: 103].

  80. See [6: 291].

  81. Algirdas J. Greimas and J. Courtés define the notion of justice in this way: “La justice peut désigner la compétence du Destinateur social, doté de la modalité du pouvoir-faire absolu: chargé d’exercer la sanction, un tel Destinateur sera dit alors judicateur. On entend également par justice une forme de la rétribution negative (ou punition), exercée, sur la dimension pragmatique, par le Destinateur social, par opposition à la vengeance qui est réalisée par un Destinateur individuel” [23: 201].

  82. See [27: 203].

References

  1. Alexy, Robert. 2011. Conceito e validade do direito. Transl. Gercília Batista de Oliveira Mendes. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

  2. Amselek, Paul (org.). 1986. Théorie des actes de langage, éthique et droit. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

  3. Austin, J. L. 1970. Quand dire c’est faire. Trans. Gilles Lane. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

  4. Barros, Diana L.P. 1988. Teoria do discurso. São Paulo: Atual.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barroso, Luís R. 2013. Curso de direito constitucional contemporâneo, 4th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bittar, Eduardo C.B. 2017. Linguagem jurídica: Semiótica, discurso e direito, 7th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bittar, Eduardo C.B. 2019. Introdução ao estudo do Direito: humanismo, democracia e justiça, 2nd ed. São Paulo: Saraiva.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bittar, Eduardo C. B. 2018. O conceito de Direito e o conceito de sistema jurídico: uma abordagem a partir da Semiótica Jurídica. Boletim da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra XCIV.

  9. Bittar, Eduardo C. B. 2000. O discurso do legislador de trânsito: uma análise semiótica da linguagem não verbal normativa. Revista de Informação Legislativa 145.

  10. Bittar, Eduardo C. B. 2020. Semiotics, law and art: between theory of justice and theory of law. Springer. In Press.

  11. Carrió, Genaro R. 1976. Notas sobre derecho y lenguaje, 2nd ed. Buenos Aires: Abeledo-Perrot.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Coquet, Jean-Claude. 1982. Sémiotique: l’École de Paris. Paris: Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cornu, Gérard. 1990. Linguistique juridique. Paris: Éditions Montchrestien.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Courtés, Joseph. 1979. Introduction to narrative and discursive semiotics. Trad. Norma Backes Tasca. Coimbra: Almedina.

  15. Delmas-Marty, Mireille. 2004. Por um direito comum. Trans. Maria Ermantina de Almeida Prado Galvão. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

  16. Dubouchet, Paul. 1990. Sémiotique juridique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eco, Umberto. 1995. Os limites da interpretação. Trans. São Paulo: Perspectiva.

  18. Eco, Umberto. 1991. Tratado geral de semiótica. 2. ed. Trans. São Paulo: Perspectiva.

  19. Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1970. Sémantique, sémiotique et sémiologies. Sign, language, cultur.

  20. Greimas, Algirdas Julien; Landowski, Éric. 1976. Semiótica e ciências sociais. Trans. Álvaro Lorencini e Sandra Nitrine. São Paulo: Cultrix.

  21. Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1986. Análise do discurso em ciências sociais. São Paulo: Global.

  22. Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1966. Sémantique structurale. Paris: Librairie Larousse.

  23. Greimas, Algirdas J; Courtés, Joseph. 1993. Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.

  24. Groupe d’Entrevernes (Giroud, Jean-Claude; Panier, Louis, orgs.). 1979. Analyse sémiotique des textes. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Grzegorczyk, Christophe, Françoise Michaut, and Michel Troper. 1992. Le positivisme juridique. Bruxelles: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Habermas, Jürgen. 1988. Teoria de la acción comunicativa: racionalidad de la acción y racionalización social, t. I. Trans. Manuel Jiménez Redondo. Madrid: Taurus.

  27. Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. Direito e democracia: entre facticidade e validade, v. I e II. 2. ed. Trans. Flávio Beno Siebeneichler. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.

  28. Habermas, Jürgen. 2012. Sobre a constituição da Europa: um ensaio. Tradução de Denilson Luiz Werle; Luiz Repa; Rúrion Melo. São Paulo: UNESP.

  29. Jackson, Bernard S. 1985. Semiotics and legal theory. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jackson, Bernard S. 2017. Le périple sémiotique d’un théoricien du droit. Actes Sémiotiques 120: 06–45.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson, Bernard S. 1991. Law, fact and narrative coherence. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kalinowski, Georges. 1972. La logique des normes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kalinowski, Georges. 1986. La sémiotique juridique. Droit Prospectif, Revue de Recherche Juridique: Colloque International de Sémiotique Juridique 11.

  34. Kelsen, Hans. 1976. Teoria pura do direito. 4. ed. Trans. João Baptista Machado. Coimbra: Arménio Amado.

  35. Kevelson, Roberta. 1988. The law as a system of signs. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Landowski, Eric (org.). 1986. Pour une approche sémiotique et narrative du droit. Droit Prospectif, Revue de Recherche Juridique: Colloque International de Sémiotique Juridique 11.

  37. Landowski, Eric. 1988. Vérité et véridiction en droit. Le Discours Juridique: Langage, Signification et Valeurs, Droit et Société: Revue Internationale de Théorie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique 8.

  38. Landowski, Eric. 1993. La sociedad figurada: ensayos de sociosemiótica. Trans. Gabriel Hernández et al. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

  39. Lotman, Juri. 2005. On the semio-sphere. Sign Systems Studies 33 (1): 206–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moor, Pierre. 2010. Dynamique du système juridique: une théorie générale du droit. Genève; Bruxelles; Paris: Schulthess; Bruylant; LGDJ.

  41. Pais, Cidmar Teodoro. 1984. Aspectos de uma tipologia dos universos de discurso. Revista Brasileira de Linguística 7.

  42. Paychère, François. 1990. Théorie du discours juridique. Thèse de Doctorat à l’Université Paris-II. France: Paris.

  43. Peirce, Charles S. 1978. Écrits sur le signe. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Peirce, Charles S. 1987. Textes fondamentaux de sémiotique. Trans. Berthe Fouchier-Axelsen et Clara Foz. Paris: Librairie Méridiens Klinchsieck.

  45. Pottier, Bernard. 1992. Théorie et analyse en linguistique, 2nd ed. Paris: Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rastier, François. 1981. Sur les structures de la signification: note sur la théorie sémiotique de A. J. Greimas. Le Bulletin du Groupe de Recherches Sémio-linguistiques: le carré sémiotique (Landowski, Eric, org.) 17.

  47. Rastier, François. 1989. Sens et textualité. Paris: Hachette.

  48. Sarlet, Ingo Wolfgang. 2011. Dignidade da pessoa humana e direitos fundamentais na Constituição de 1988, 9th ed. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1994. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Timsit, Gérard. 1992. La science juridique, science du texte. Lire le droit: langue, texte, cognition (Bourcier, Danièle, org.) 9.

  51. Timsit, Gérard. 1991. Les noms de la loi. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

  52. Wolkmer, Antônio Carlos. 2016. Introdução aos fundamentos de uma Teoria Geral dos Novos Direitos. In Os novos direitos no Brasil, ed. Antonio Carlos Wolkmer and José Rubens Morato Leite. São Paulo: Saraiva.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and General Theory of Law, Faculty of Law of the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Eduardo C. B. Bittar

Authors
  1. Eduardo C. B. Bittar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo C. B. Bittar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Translated by Kavita Lamba.

He was President of the National Association for Human Rights (ANDHEP, 2009–2010). He was the 2nd. Vice-President of the Brazilian Association of Philosophy of Law (IVR/Brazil, 2009–2016). He has held Meetings and Conferences abroad, in Lebanon, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Africa, United States, Canada, Spain, Belgium and Switzerland. He was Visiting Professor at the Università di Bologna (Bologna, Italy, 2017), Visiting Professor at the Université Paris-Nanterre (Paris, France, 2018) and at the Collège de France (Paris, France, 2019). He is a Member of the Research Group Human Rights, Democracy, Politics and Memory of the Institute of Advanced Studies of the University of São Paulo (IEA/USP). He is a N-2 researcher at CNPq. He is an Associate Editor of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (IJSL-Springer).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bittar, E.C.B. Semiotics of Law, Juridicity and Legal System: Some Observations and Clarifications of a Theoretical Concept. Int J Semiot Law 35, 93–116 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09797-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09797-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation