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
2 - Seeing Sense: The Complexity of Key Words That Tell Us What Law Is
from Part I - Sui generis or Socially Problematic: The Character of Legal Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 December 2017
By
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. 32 - 70Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Constable, M. (1998). ‘Reflections on Law as a Profession of Words’. In Garth, B. and Sarat, A. (eds.) Justice and Power in Sociolegal Research. Northwestern University Press, 19–35. Available online at http://www.mcgill.ca/files/crclaw-discourse/Constable.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schauer, F. (2015). ‘On the Relationship between Legal and Ordinary Language’, in Tiersma, P., Solan, L., Ainsworth, J., and Shuy, R. (eds.) (2015) Speaking of Language and Law: Conversations on the Work of Peter Tiersma. New York: Oxford University Press, 35–38.Google Scholar
References
Baker, P. and McEnery, T. (2015). Corpora and Discourse Studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, A. (2005). Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1970 [1780]). Of Laws in General. Edited by Hart, H. L. A.. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2011). ‘Legal Texts and Canons of Construction: A View from Current Pragmatic Theory’, in Freeman, M. and Smith, F. (eds.) Law and Language: Current Legal Issues 2011, Vol. 15. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 8–33.Google Scholar
Cassin, B. (ed.) (2014). Dictionary of Untranslatables: A Philosophical Lexicon. Translation edited by Apter, E., Lezra, J. and Wood, W.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (2007). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Durant, A. (2006). ‘Raymond Williams's Keywords: Meanings “Offered, Felt for, Tested, Confirmed, Asserted, Qualified, Changed”’. Critical Quarterly 48(4): 1–26.Google Scholar
Durant, A. (2010). Meaning in the Media: Discourse, Controversy and Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (2001). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1956). ‘Essentially contested concepts’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56, 167–198.Google Scholar
Goodrich, P. (1986). Reading the Law: A Critical Introduction to Legal Method and Techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K. (2010). Legal Interpretation: Perspectives from Other Disciplines and Private Texts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K. (2013). Statutory Interpretation and Common Law Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1989). ‘Jurisprudence’. In Urmson, J. O. and Rée, J. (eds.) The Concise Encyclopaedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers (revised edition). First published in 1960. London: Unwin Hyman, 155.Google Scholar
Hutton, C. (2014a). Word Meaning and Legal Interpretation: An Introductory Guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Hutton, C. (2014b). ‘Defining ordinary words for mundane objects: legal lexicography, ordinary language and the word vehicle’. In Mac Aodha, M. (ed.) Legal Lexicography: A Comparative Perspective. Farnham: Ashgate, 177–200.Google Scholar
Kay, C. and Allan, K. (2015). English Historical Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mac Aodha, M. (ed.) (2014). Legal Lexicography: A Comparative Perspective. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Mattila, H. (2016). Comparative Legal Linguistics: Language of Law, Latin and Modern Lingua Francas (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mehl, S. (2013). ‘Thinking linguistically about keywords: polysemy, semantic change and divergent identities’. Keywords Project website (http://keywordsproject.pitt.edu).Google Scholar
Mertz, E. (2007). The Language of Law School: Learning to “Think Like a Lawyer”. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.) (1997). Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). ‘The Meaning of Meaning’. In Mind, Language and Reality, Philosophical Papers vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–271.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (2009). Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scalia, A. and Garner, B. (2012). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Berkeley, CA: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) (1987). Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (2011). ‘What Vagueness and Inconsistency Tell Us About Interpretation’. In Marmor, A. and Soames, S. (eds.) Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–57.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (2010). The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Urmson, J. O. and Rée, J. (eds.) (1989 [1960]). The Concise Encyclopaedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers (revised edition). London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (1994). Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues. California Law Review 82: 509.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. (1945). ‘Language and the Law’, 61 Law Quarterly Review, in 4 sections, at 71, 179, 293, 384, reprinted in Schauer, F. (ed.) (1993). Law and Language. Aldershot: Dartmouth Press, 71–183.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (2nd ed.). London: Fontana.Google Scholar