Abstract
This chapter analyzes pragmatics in relation to the concepts of transparency and context in legal communication. First, the basic argument offered in Marmor’s The Pragmatics of Legal Language is critiqued. Second, I use Dascal’s Transparency and Doubt: Understanding and interpretation in Pragmatics and in Law to both critique and extend the agenda of a pragmatics of law. Third, I introduce two recent US Supreme Court cases, Smith and Bailey to give an example of dispute over the meaning of the word “use” in American statutory law. Finally, the analysis will be completed though the investigation of a more pragmatic conception of pragmatics. The argument will have two parts. First, it is ultimately argued that Marmor’s claim that law, because it is largely a domain of strategic action, does not benefit from “supplemental” pragmatic analysis, ignores complexities in the legal realm as well as the resources offered within a pragmatic pragmatics for a much more substantial understanding of law and legal discourse. Second, I argue to the contrary that a broader and more contextualized conception of pragmatics as exemplified by Dascal in “Transparency and Doubt,” and supplemented by insights from Peirce and Dewey, offers important tools useful in analyzing the domain of law and legal discourse.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brandom, Robert B. 2000. Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Burke, Tom. 1994. Dewey’s new logic: A reply to Russell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Butler, Brian E. 2001. Is all judicial decision-making unavoidably interpretive? The Legal Studies Forum 25:315–329.
Butters, Ronald R. 1993. If the wages of sin are for death: The semantics and pragmatics of statutory ambiguity. American Speech 68:83–94.
Canale, Damiano, and Giovanni Tuzet. 2007. On legal Inferentialism: Toward a pragmatics of semantic content in legal interpretation? Ratio Juris 20:32–44.
Casanovas, Pompeu. 1999. Pragmatics and legal culture: A general framework, working paper 159. Institute de Ciencies Politiques i Socials 159 (unpaginated).
Collier, John, and Konrad Talmont-Kaminski. 2005. Pragmatist pragmatics: The functional context of utterances. Philosophica 75:61-87.
Dascal, Marcelo. 2003. Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Dascal, Marcelo, and Jerzy Wroblewski. 1988. Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law. Law and Philosophy 7:203–224.
Dascal, Marcelo, and Jerzy Wroblewski. 1991. The rational law-maker and the pragmatics of legal interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 15:421–444.
Davis, Wayne A. 1998. Implicature: Intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dupret, Baudouin, and Jean-Noel Ferrie. 2008. Legislating at the shopfloor level: Background knowledge and relevant context of parliamentary debates. Journal of Pragmatics 40:960–978.
Engberg, Jan. 2010. Knowledge construction and legal discourse: The interdependence of perspective and visibility of characteristics. Journal of Pragmatics 42:48–63.
Goddard, Cliff, ed. 2006. Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Klatt, Matthias. 2008. Making the law explicit: The normativity of legal argumentation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Kukla, Rebecca, and Mark Lance. 2009. Yo! And Lo!: The pragmatic topography of the space of reasons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Maley, Yon. 1995. From adjudication to mediation: Third party discourse in conflict resolution. Journal of Pragmatics 23:93–110.
Marmor, Andrei. 2008. The pragmatics of legal language. Ratio Juris 21:423–452.
Mertz, Elizabeth. 1992. Linguistic ideology and praxis in U.S. Law School classrooms. Pragmatics 2:325–334.
Mertz, Elizabeth. 1994. Legal language: Pragmatics, poetics, and social power. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:435–455.
Morawski, Lech. 1999. Law, fact and legal language. Law and Philosophy 18:461–473.
Posner, Richard. 1987. Legal formalism, legal realism, and the interpretation of statutes and the constitution. Case Western Reserve University Law Review 37:179–217.
Sinclair, M. B. W. 1985. Law and language: The role of pragmatics in statutory interpretation. University of Pittsburg Law Review 46:373–420.
Soames, Scott. 2009. Philosophical essays. Vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Statutes and contracts: An analysis of legal speech acts in the English language of the law. Journal of Pragmatics 23:31–53.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. Anglo scripts against “putting pressure” on other people and their linguistic manifestations. In Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context, ed. Cliff Goddard, 31–63. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Butler, B. (2016). Transparency and Context in Legal Communication: Pragmatics and Legal Interpretation. In: Capone, A., Mey, J. (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12615-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12616-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)