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
- 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
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
- 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. 17 - 92Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
References
Boorstin, D. (1941). The Mysterious Science of the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cahn, E. (1964 [1949]). The Sense of Injustice: An Anthropocentric View of the Law. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. (2009). Fictions of Justice: The International Criminal Court and the Challenge of Legal Pluralism in Sub-Saharan Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, T.-N. (2014). “Barack Obama, Ferguson, and the Evidence of Things Unsaid.” The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/barack-obama-ferguson-and-the-evidence-of-things-unsaid/383212/Google Scholar
Conley, J. and O'Barr, W. (1990). Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Frake, C. (1963). “Litigation in Lipay: A study in Subanum Law,” in Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Science Congress 3: 217–222.Google Scholar
Galanter, M. (1983). “Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society.” UCLA Law Review 31: 4.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. A. (1980). Legal Imperialism: American Lawyers and Foreign Aid in Latin America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Hayden, R. (1984). “A Note on Caste Panchayats and Government Courts in India: Different Kinds of Stages for Different Kinds of Performances.” Journal of Legal Pluralism 22: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattei, U. and Nader, L. (2008). Plunder: When the Rule of Law Is Illegal. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. (1988). “The Uses of History: Language, Ideology, and Law in the United States and South Africa.” Law & Society Review 22: 661–685.Google Scholar
Nader, L. (1989). “The ADR Explosion – The Implications of Rhetoric in Legal Reform.” In Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice. Ontario, Canada: University of Windsor, 269–291.Google Scholar
Nader, L. (2001). “Crime as a Category.” In Berreman, J. (ed.) Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 326–340.Google Scholar
Nader, L. (2005). “Law and the Theory of Lack.” Hastings International and Comparative Law Review (Winter) 28(2): 191–204.Google Scholar
Nader, L. (2009). “Law and the Frontiers of Illegalities.” In von Benda-Beckmann, F., von Benda-Beckmann, K. and Griffiths, A. (eds.) The Power of Law in a Transnational World: Anthropological Inquiries. New York: Berghahn Books, 54–73.Google Scholar
Nader, L. (2010). “Epilogue – The Words We Use: Justice, Human Rights, and the Sense of Injustice.” In Clarke, K. M. and Goodale, M. (eds.) Mirrors of Justice: Law and Power in the Post-Cold War Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 316–331.Google Scholar
Spradley, J. (1988). You Owe Yourself a Drunk: An Ethnography of Urban Nomads. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Williams, N. (1986). The Yolngu and Their Land: A System of Land Tenure and the Fight for Its Recognition: A System of Land Tenure and the Fight for Its Recognition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Zulaika, J. and Douglass, W. (1996). Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and Faces of Terrorism. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durant, A. (2006). ‘Raymond Williams's Keywords: Meanings “Offered, Felt for, Tested, Confirmed, Asserted, Qualified, Changed”’. Critical Quarterly 48(4): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.Google 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.Google 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
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.Google 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.Google 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. (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.