Book contents
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Editors' Introduction
- Part I Sui generis or Socially Problematic: The Character of Legal Language
- 1 The Unspoken Language of the Law
- 2 Seeing Sense: The Complexity of Key Words That Tell Us What Law Is
- 3 Hiding in Plain Sight: The Category of Ordinary Language and the Case Law Domain of Transgender Marriage1
- Part II Imperfect Fit between Legal Categories and Social Discourse
- Part III Written in Silence: Hidden Social Meanings in Legal Discourse
- Part IV Conflict between Linguistic and Legal Ideologies
- Part V Demands of Law and Limits of Language
- Afterword
- Index
- References
3 - Hiding in Plain Sight: The Category of Ordinary Language and the Case Law Domain of Transgender Marriage1
from Part I - Sui generis or Socially Problematic: The Character of Legal Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 December 2017
Book contents
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Editors' Introduction
- Part I Sui generis or Socially Problematic: The Character of Legal Language
- 1 The Unspoken Language of the Law
- 2 Seeing Sense: The Complexity of Key Words That Tell Us What Law Is
- 3 Hiding in Plain Sight: The Category of Ordinary Language and the Case Law Domain of Transgender Marriage1
- Part II Imperfect Fit between Legal Categories and Social Discourse
- Part III Written in Silence: Hidden Social Meanings in Legal Discourse
- Part IV Conflict between Linguistic and Legal Ideologies
- Part V Demands of Law and Limits of Language
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law , pp. 71 - 92Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Ainsworth, J. (2006). Linguistics as a knowledge domain in the law. Drake Law Review 54: 651–669.Google Scholar
Alexandrov, V. (2007). Literature, literariness, and the brain. Comparative Literature Spring 59: 97–118.Google Scholar
Ambrose, A. (1970). Three aspects of Moore's philosophy. In G.E. Moore: Essays in Retrospect, 80–88. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Aprill, E. (1998). The law of the word: dictionary shopping in the Supreme Court. Arizona State Law Journal 30: 275–336.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1956). A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. Warnock, G. J. (ed.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baier, K. (1951). The ordinary use of words. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 52: 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgmann, A. (2012). The Philosophy of Language: Historical Foundations and Contemporary Issues. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Caton, C. (1963). Editor's introduction. In Philosophy and Ordinary Language, v–xii. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Cavell, S. (1964). Must we mean what we say? In Chappell, V.C. (ed.), Ordinary Language: Essays in Philosophical Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 75–112.Google Scholar
Chappell, V. C. (1964). Editor's introduction. In Ordinary Language: Essays in Philosophical Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1–4.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1951). Philosophers and ordinary language. The Philosophical Review 60: 317–328.Google Scholar
Clifford, J. (1987). Ideology and discourse: a historical perspective. Journal of Advanced Composition 7: 121–130.Google Scholar
Coleridge, S. (1984). Biographia Literaria. Engell, James and Bate, Walter (eds.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. First published 1817.Google Scholar
Davis, D. (1996). The twist of language and the two Fagans: please sir may I have some more literalism! South African Journal on Human Rights 12: 504–512.Google Scholar
De Jong, H. and Werner, W. G. (1998). Continuity and change in legal positivism. Law and Philosophy 17: 233–250.Google Scholar
Dowling, L. (1986). Language and Decadence in the Victorian Fin de Siècle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. (2010). Is literary language and development of ordinary language? Lingua 120: 1219–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, N. and Durant, A. (1987). Editors’ introduction. In The Linguistics of Writing; Arguments between Language and Literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1–14.Google Scholar
Fish, S. (1973). How ordinary is ordinary language? New Literary History 5: 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, S. (2011). Corbett v Corbett: once a man, always a man? In Gilmore, S., Herring, J. and Probert, R. (eds.) Landmark Cases in Family Law. Oxford: Hart, 47–72.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1988). Reply to Richards. In Grandy, R. and Warner, R. (eds.) Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 45–108.Google Scholar
Hacker, P. (2013). Oxford philosophy and the linguistic turn. In Beaney, M. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 941–946.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1964). The linguistic study of literary texts. In Lunt, H. G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 302–307.Google Scholar
Hanfling, O. (2000). Philosophy and Ordinary Language: The Bent and Genius of Our Tongue. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Harris, R. (1988). Murray, Moore and the myth. In Harris, R. (ed.) Linguistic Thought in England 1914–1945. London: Duckworth, 1–26.Google Scholar
Hart, H. (1994). The Concept of Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. First published 1961.Google Scholar
Hutton, C. (1996). Law lessons for linguists? Accountability and acts of professional classification. Language and Communication 16: 205–214.Google Scholar
Hutton, C. (2005). Authority and expertise in forensic linguistics. Language and Communication 25: 183–188.Google Scholar
Hutton, C. (2011). Objectification and transgender jurisprudence: the dictionary as quasi-statute. Hong Kong Law Journal 41: 27–47.Google Scholar
Hutton, C. (2014b). Defining ordinary words for mundane objects. In Oadha, M. M. (ed.) Legal Lexicography: A Comparative Perspective. Farnham: Ashgate, 177–200.Google Scholar
Jackson, B. (1997). Semiotics and Legal Theory. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1923). On Czech Verse especially in a Comparison with Russian Verse. Berlin: Opoyaz.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statements: linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 351–377.Google Scholar
Karcz, A. (2002). The Polish Formalist School and Russian Formalism. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Klinck, D. R. (1992). Words of the Law: Approaches to Legal Discourse. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press.Google Scholar
Malcolm, N. (1964). Moore and ordinary language. In Chappell, V.C. (ed.) Ordinary Language: Essays in Philosophical Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 5–23. First published 1942.Google Scholar
Mathews, M. (1986). OK for starters: Minister of Law and Order v Hurley. South African Journal on Human Rights 2: 333–338.Google Scholar
Mattila, H. (2012). Legal vocabulary. In Solan, L. and Tiersma, P. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, H. (2016). Comparative Legal Linguistics: Language of Law, Latin and Modern Lingua Francas. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. (1989). Excursions into the nature of legal language. Cleveland State Law Review 37: 271–336.Google Scholar
Mulhall, S. (1998). Stanley Cavell: Philosophy's Recounting of the Ordinary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ormrod, R. (1972). The medico-legal aspects of sex determination. The Medico-Legal Journal 46: 18–32.Google Scholar
Parker-Ryan, S. (2010). Reconsidering ordinary language philosophy: Malcolm's (Moore's) ordinary language argument. Essays in Philosophy 11: 123–149.Google Scholar
Parker-Ryan, S. (2012). Ordinary language philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ord-lang, accessed July 16, 2015.Google Scholar
Rivkin, J. and Ryan, M. (2004). Introduction: Formalisms. In Rivkin, J. and Ryan, M. (eds.) Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 3–6.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. (2002). The Elusiveness of the Ordinary: Studies in the Possibility of Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1964). Ordinary language. In Chappell, V.C. (ed.) Ordinary Language: Essays in Philosophical Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 24–40. First published 1953.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E. (1970). Notes on linguistics and literature. College English 32: 184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shklovsky, V. (2004). Art as technique. In Rivkin, J. and Ryan, M. (eds.) Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 15–21. First published 1917.Google Scholar
Slocum, B. (2012). Linguistics and ‘ordinary meaning’ determinations. Statute Law Review 33: 39–83.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1993). The Language of Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, L. (1995). Judicial decisions and linguistic analysis: Is there a linguist in the court? Washington University Law Quarterly 73: 1069–1080.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1999). Can the legal system use experts on meaning? Tennessee Law Review 66: 1167–1199.Google Scholar
Valenza, R. (2009). Literature, Language, and the Rise of the Intellectual Disciplines in Britain, 1680–1820. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, J. B. (2008). Establishing relations between law and other forms of thought and language. Erasmus Law Review 1: 3–22.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical Investigations. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Revised 4th ed., Hacker, P.M.S. and Schulte, J. (eds.). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. First translated edition 1953.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, W. (1802). Lyrical Ballads with Pastoral and other Poems. Vol. 1. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cases Cited
Anonymous v Anonymous 67 Misc.2d 982, 325 N.Y.S.2d 499 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1971).
Attorney-General (Cth) v “Kevin and Jennifer” [2003] Fam CA 94.
Bellinger v Bellinger [2001] EWCA Civ 1140. 2003 WL 1610368 (2003).
Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854.
Corbett v Corbett [1971] 2 All ER 33.
Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 18.
Kantaris v Kantaris 84 So. 2d 155 (2004).
Littleton v Prange 9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1999).
M.T. v T.J. 40 N.J. Super. 77 (1976).
Nix v Hedden 149 U.S. 304 (1893).
R v Harris (1988) 17 NSWLR 158.
R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] 2 AC 687.
Re Kevin 165 FLR 404 (2001).
Re Ladrach 32 Ohio Misc.2d 6 (1987).
re the Estate of Marshall G. Gardiner 73 Kan. 191, 42 P.3d 120 (2002).
Secretary, Department of Social Security v State Railroad Authority (1993) 43 FCR 299.
S Y v S Y [1963] P 37, [1962] 3 WLR 526.
Talbot (otherwise Poyntz) v Talbot, John David (otherwise Talbot, Mabel) (1967) 111 S.J. 213.
W v Registrar of Marriages (CACV 266/2010).
W v The Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39.
Anonymous v Anonymous 67 Misc.2d 982, 325 N.Y.S.2d 499 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1971).
Attorney-General (Cth) v “Kevin and Jennifer” [2003] Fam CA 94.
Bellinger v Bellinger [2001] EWCA Civ 1140. 2003 WL 1610368 (2003).
Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854.
Corbett v Corbett [1971] 2 All ER 33.
Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 18.
Kantaris v Kantaris 84 So. 2d 155 (2004).
Littleton v Prange 9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1999).
M.T. v T.J. 40 N.J. Super. 77 (1976).
Nix v Hedden 149 U.S. 304 (1893).
R v Harris (1988) 17 NSWLR 158.
R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] 2 AC 687.
Re Kevin 165 FLR 404 (2001).
Re Ladrach 32 Ohio Misc.2d 6 (1987).
re the Estate of Marshall G. Gardiner 73 Kan. 191, 42 P.3d 120 (2002).
Secretary, Department of Social Security v State Railroad Authority (1993) 43 FCR 299.
S Y v S Y [1963] P 37, [1962] 3 WLR 526.
Talbot (otherwise Poyntz) v Talbot, John David (otherwise Talbot, Mabel) (1967) 111 S.J. 213.
W v Registrar of Marriages (CACV 266/2010).
W v The Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39.
- 1
- Cited by