Law and Linguistics

Law as a regulator of the conduct of social subjects cannot be directly equated with other methods of controlling the behavior in society. The grounds of legally significant actions allow determination of the context of the application of legal rules. The meaning of each legal term, as argued by L. Wittgenstein, depends on its " context of use " and the conventions of use at the moment. Therefore, the interpretation of the rules cannot be based solely on the principles of logic and be completely neutral. On the one hand, " we follow the rule blindly " , but at the same time, the repeatability of the behavior of other people and the ability to observe their behavior (by analogy with the mathematical concepts of addition and sum) encourage " learning " the rules and acting in accordance with the rules. The ascription of the legal language and the " imputation " principle of the legal interpretation of facts allow defining a key concept that cannot exist beyond the constructed social reality. The attempts to analyze non-legal factors appeal not to legal arguments but to other phenomena. The legal term in its nature not only describes empirical facts but also encourages action. The most dismal example of a change in philosophical argumentation and legal reasoning in the philosophy of law is the influence of Quine's arguments. In the context of the methodology of legal explanation, the naturalization of the epistemology of law is possible only when the limitations and specifics of traditional methods of interpretation of legal reality are considered. The article focuses on the analysis of some arguments made by the analytical legal philosophers regarding the linguistic content of legal rules with no reference to any social determination or formulation of the significant judgments about the linguistic nature of legal reality.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1999

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 1994

The interest taken by linguists in legal language had been fairly sporadic in the distant past. Until Crystal and Davy 1 devoted one chapter in their book, Investigating English Style (1969), to legal language, or more precisely to the language of written contracts, only scholars of the Prague School of Linguistics in the inter-war years in their more social 2 approach to linguistics viewed language in functional terms. Although at the time, structuralism was the dominant theory among American linguists (e.g. Bloomfield) and among many European linguists (e.g. Hjelmslev), the Praguians considered language foremost as the principal device of communicating messages in all branches of human society; the law is regarded as one such branch (e.g. Havr~nek, 3 Pe~ska4). The means by which effective communication is achieved in any field are reflected in the occurrence of particular linguistic structures. Some of the linguistic structures may often be recognised as constituting a set of distinguishing features of that particular use or function of language (what is often termed "register"). After Crystal and Davy's work, it still took some time for a further, more comprehensive study of legal language to emerge. The

The Modern Law Review, 1984

LEGAL theorists have traditionally made a fairly extensive use of the philosophy of language. It has frequently been argued that linguistic philosophy is a valuable heuristic tool for the elucidation of general questions concerning the institutional nature of law and the meaning of key legal terms. At a more substantive level, linguistic methodology may also aid in the practical endeavour of explaining the intricacies of rule interpretation and rule application. Both themes were the peculiar concern of H. L. A. Hart. The incontestable success and fecundity of his analytic elaborations of the nature of legal rules have made semantic analysis and the concepts of ordinary language philosophy virtual commonplaces of legal judgment. If one text in particular stands out, it is Hart's discussion of the role of definitions in jurisprudence.' It was here that Hart most persuasively introduced the "linguistic phenomenology" of J. L. Austin' together with Wittgenstein's linguistic analysis of rule usage, into a jurisprudential context. In The Concept of Law,3 Hart consolidated his earlier claims as to the role of linguistics within legal theory to such effect that it has recently and plausibly been argued that to confirm or confute the positivist account of law it is necessary "to take up some position in. .. the philosophy of lang~age."~ Taking this H. L. A. Hart, Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence (1953).

Journal of Communication, 1997

Most discussions of law in the field of communication tend to focus either on the relevance of particular legal decisions and procedures for media and other forms of communication, or on contributions communication research can make to legal process and decision making, such as the effect of different messages on juries or television audiences. What is seldom noted is that, in other fields, the communicative has come to be seen as central to a much more fundamental question: What is the law in the first place? Once again, communication turns up near the center of a discussion that cuts across numerous disciplines. This discussion should not be ignored by the field of communication itself.

The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, 2014

Armenian folia anglistika, 2023

The present article is part of a larger project that is aimed at exploring the peculiar features of language use in the legal domain against the background of the interaction of language and law. The investigation of the intersection of linguistics and legal studies is of paramount importance. Legal regulations, qualified legal assistance, knowledge of linguistic requirements for legal formulations, etc. have nowadays become an indispensable part of human life. Focusing on the results achieved by our predecessors that will help understand the nature and the complexity of the legal system and law, and divulging the specificities of legal discourse at large and the one exercised in the courtroom in particular are of paramount importance. The desire to engross this field has stimulated the study of a wide range of books, articles and works of prominent scholars which, in one way or another, refer to the mentioned questions. Applying the methodology of discourse analysis and description of the relevant literature, we come to the conclusion that an integrated and coherent analysis from a linguistic standpoint proves to be an inevitable step in the process of revealing the concept of legal discourse.

Since the 1980s, investigations into the intersection of language and law have been of major interdisciplinary interest among scholars and practi-tioners from different research backgrounds. Emanating from the field of linguistics and other disciplines, this research has generated different data for analysis, method, and theory about the intriguing aspects of language and law, thus being clearly important as a source for coherent and integra-ted results. This second issue of the Explorations in Language and Law series – Language and Law in Academic and Professional Settings: Analyses and Applications explores descriptively and interpretatively the ways language and law inte-ract from an interdisciplinary perspective, and allows various approaches and perspectives to be taken from academic and professional contexts. The issue presents various Analyses of topic areas where definitional insights, legal discourse (spoken or written), language policy, identity, power, con-trol, ideology,...

2021

Language plays an essential role both in creating law and in governing its implementation. Providing an accessible and comprehensive introduction to this subject, Language and Law:describes the different registers and genres that make up spoken and written legal language and how they develop over time; analyses real-life examples drawn from court cases from different parts of the world, illustrating the varieties of English used in the courtroom by speakers occupying different roles; addresses the challenges presented to our notions of law and regulation by online communication; discusses the complex role of translation in bilingual and multilingual jurisdictions, including Hong Kong and Canada; and provides readings from key scholars in the discipline, including Lawrence Solan, Peter Goodrich, Marianne Constable, David Mellinkoff, and Chris Heffer. With a wide range of activities throughout, this accessible textbook is essential reading for anyone studying language and law or foren...