Lawyers Making Meaning: The Roberta Kevelson Seminar on Law and Semiotics


The Roberta Kevelson Seminar on Law and Semiotics is integrated in the regular program of a US Law School and student enrollment is honored with credit points. Hitherto, the study of Legal Semiotics has mainly been located outside the Law Schools in the US and the Faculties of Law in the EU. Two important questions within the more general theme of Legal Semiotics and Legal Education arose: (1) the program requirements in an education context, and (2) the attention and interests of the students. This IJSL issue offers essays presented during the Round Table which closed the Seminar, provides some experience-based suggestions for a Seminar program and discusses how to deal with the pragmatic attitude of law students. It interests how those topics relate to legal and semiotic literature and how they focus globally important viewpoints, as can be concluded in the example of the legal semiotics of family structures.


  1. 1.
    Kevelson, Roberta. 1988. The law as a system of signs. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jackson, Bernard S. 1985. Semiotics and legal theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jackson, Bernard S. 1988. Law, fact and narrative coherence. Legal semiotics monographs. Roby, Merseyside, England: Deborah Charles Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1990. The social sciences: A semiotic view. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brigham, John. 1978. Constitutional language: An interpretation of judicial decision. NY, USA: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brigham, John, and Roberta Kevelson. 1997. States, citizens, and questions of significance (Tenth Round Table on Law and Semiotics). Semiotics and the human sciences. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peirce, Charles S. 1998. The essential peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 2) (1893–1913). The Pierce Edition Project, Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Course in general linguistics. New York: Graw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1984. Structural semantics: An attempt at a method. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lacan, Jacques. 1949/1977. The mirror-stage as formative of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience (trans: Sheridan, Alan). In Écrits: A selection. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lacan, Jacques. 1949. The mirror stage, source of the I-function, as shown by psychoanalytic experience (trans: in International Journal of Psychoanalysis) No. 30.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lacan, Jacques. 1969/2006. The seminar XVII, the other side of psychoanalysis, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller (trans: Grigg, Russell) New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Legendre, Pierre. 1998. [How to separate words and things] Du Pouvoir de Diviser les Mots et les Choses. Brussels: Documenta et Opuscula.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Legendre, Pierre. 2001. [Society as a text; Outlines of a dogmatic anthropology] De la Société comme Texte; Linéaments d’une Anthropologie Dogmatique. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Derrida, Jacques. 1973. “Speech and phenomena” and other essays on Husserl’s theory of signs (trans: Allison, David B.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paul, J. 1990–1991. The politics of legal semiotics. Texas Law Review 69: 1779 ff.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balkin, J.M. 1990. The Hohfeldian approach to law and semiotics. University of Miami Law Review 44: 1119 ff.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Balkin, J.M. 2005. Deconstruction’s legal career. Cardozo Law Review 27 (2): 101.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Advances in semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Balkin, J.M. 1990–1991. The promise of legal semiotics. Texas Law Review 69: 1831 ff.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Unger, R.M. 1983. Critical legal studies. Harvard Law Review 96: 561 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beebee, Barton. 2003–2004. The semiotic analysis of trademark law. UCLA Law Review 51: 621 ff.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jackson, Bernard S. 2008. The promise of legal semiotics: A case study of a current research project. In Conference Book 7th International Roundtable for the Semiotics of Law, Boulogne sur Mer.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pencak, W.A., and Cindy Palecek. 2002. From absurdity to Zen: The wit and wisdom of Roberta Kevelson, Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vico, Giambattista. 2000. Universal right (trans. Giorgio Pinton and Margaret Diehl). Rodopi: Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA, 2000. Review by William Pencak 2004. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 17: 93–97.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vico, Giambattista. 1744/1948. The new science, 3rd ed. (ed. and trans: Bergin, Thomas G. and Fisch, Max H.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dickinson School of LawPenn State UniversityCarlisleUSA

Personalised recommendations