Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:03:43.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Always speaking”? Interpreting the present tense in statutes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Neal Goldfarb
Neal Goldfarb*
Affiliation:
Butzel Long Tighe Patton Attorneys at Law, Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article takes a critical look through the lens of linguistics at the “always-speaking” principle in law — an influential principle that is recited in materials on legislative drafting as the justification for using the present tense, adopted in many common-law jurisdictions as a principle of interpretation, and accepted as a foundation for the linguistic analysis of the use of tense in statutes. The article concludes that the principle is an inadequate basis for interpreting or analysing statutes, for at least two reasons: the interpretive results that the principle is intended to support are explainable in terms of widely accepted principles in the analysis of tense, without any need to posit special principles that apply only to statutes; and the interpretations that would be required if the always-speaking principle were taken seriously would in many cases probably be regarded as unnatural by native speakers of English.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie dans une perspective linguistique le principe de 1’« énonciation continuelle» tel qu’utilisé en droit. Il s’agit d’un principe qui, dans les textes traitant de rédaction législative, est invoqué pour justifier l’emploi du temps présent, qui a été adopté comme principe d’interprétation dans le droit commun de bien des pays ou territoires et qui a été accepté comme base de l’analyse linguistique de l’emploi des temps dans les lois. Cet article affirme que ce principe constitue une base inadéquate pour l’interprétation et l’analyse des lois, et ce pour au moins deux raisons : les résultats interprétatifs que le principe est censé soutenir peuvent s’expliquer en termes de principes largement acceptés dans l’analyse des temps, sans aucun besoin d’énoncer des principes spéciaux qui ne s’appliquent qu’aux lois; et les interprétations qui en découleraient, si le principe de 1’«énonciation continuelle» était pris au sérieux, seraient dans bien des cas considérés comme non naturelles par des locuteurs natifs de l’anglais.

Keywords

always speakingpresent tensestatutory interpretationlegislative draftingtime of orientation«énonciation continuelle»temps présentinterprétation des loisrédaction législativemoment d’orientation
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 1: Temporal and modal dimensions of legal discourses , March 2013 , pp. 63 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Allot, Nicholas and Shaer, Benjamin. 2012. The illocutionary force of laws. Ms., University of Oslo and Carleton University.Google Scholar
Asprey, Michele M. 2003. Plain language for lawyers. 3rd ed. Leichhardt: Federation Press.Google Scholar
Barak, Aharon. 2005. Purposive interpretation in law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bennion, Francis A.R. 2002. Statutory interpretation: A code. 4th ed. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Bowers, Frederick. 1989. Linguistic aspects of legislative expression. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Coode, George. 1845. On legislative expression, or, The language of the written law. London: William Benning and Co.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat, Reed, Susan, and Cappelle, Bert. 2006. The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Department of Justice, Canada 2012. Legistics. Available at: www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/legis/index.html.Google Scholar
Dick, Robert C. 1985 Legal drafting. 2nd ed. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, language, and meaning, Vol. 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan. 2011. Garner’s dictionary of modern legal usage. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graboyes, Jeremy. 2010. Now voyager: Deixis and the temporal pragmatics of statutes. George Mason Law Review 17: 1231–1271.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The verb. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K., Cambridge grammar of the English language, 71–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kimble, Joseph. 2005. Guiding principles for restyling the Civil Rules. Washington, DC: Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Available at: www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/Style%20Resources/Guiding_Principles.pdf.Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 1986. It is hereby performed…: Explorations in legal speech acts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 1990. Who is the reader? Review of Frederick Bowers, Linguistic aspects of legislative expression. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 3: 309–314.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1987. Meaning and the English verb. 2nd ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Legislation Advisory Committee, New Zealand. 2001. Guidelines on process and content of legislation. Available at: www.pco.parliament.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/pdf/LAC-Guidelines-2007v2.pdf.Google Scholar
Macaulay, J.B., Adam Wilson, D.B.Read, and Strong, S.H.. 1858. First report of the commissioners appointed to revise and consolidate the statutes which apply exclusively to Upper Canada. In Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada 17, Appendix No. 3. (1859). Toronto: Rollo Campbell.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. In press. Truth in law. In Law and language, ed. Freeman, Michael and Smith, Fiona. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Office of Legislative Counsel, United States House of Representatives. 1995. House Legislative Counsel’s manual on drafting style. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Office of Legislative Counsel, United States Senate. 1997. Legislative drafting manual. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Office of Scottish Parliamentary Counsel. 2006. Plain language and legislation. Available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/93488/0022476.pdf.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Ruth. 2008. Sullivan on the construction of statutes. 5th ed. Markham: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thring, Henry. 1902. Practical legislation: The composition and language of acts of Parliament and business documents. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Statutes and contracts: An analysis of legal speech acts in the English language of the law. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 31–53.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Rhetorical strategies in legal language: Discourse analysis of statutes and contracts. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2007. Tradition and change in legal English: Verbal constructions in prescriptive texts. 2nd rev. ed. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Legal materials cited

Statutes and similar materials

Criminal Code (Canada), RSC, 1985, c. C-46, s. 71.Google Scholar
Interpretation Act (Canada), RSC, 1985. c. 1-21, s. 9.Google Scholar
Interpretation Act 1954 (Northern Ireland), s. 31(1).Google Scholar
Interpretation Act (Upper Canada), 22 Vict. c. 22, s. 18(1) (1859).Google Scholar
Interpretation Act 1999 (NZ), s. 6.Google Scholar
Interpretation Act 1924 (NZ), s. 8.Google Scholar
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s. 8.Google Scholar
Judiciary Act of 1789 (USA), 1 Stat. 73, §15.Google Scholar
U.S. Constitution, art. 1, §6, cl. 2.Google Scholar
5 USC §559.Google Scholar
5 USC §1211(a).Google Scholar
8 USC § 1367(c).Google Scholar
17 USC § 102(a).Google Scholar
17 USC §106.Google Scholar
18USC§2(a).Google Scholar
25 USC §479.Google Scholar
35 USC §101.Google Scholar
District of Columbia Code §22-2103.Google Scholar
Fed. R. Ev. 804(a).Google Scholar
Fed. R. Ev. 804(b).Google Scholar
Minors' Contract Act (UK), 1987, c. 13.Google Scholar
Virginia Code §2.2-2807.Google Scholar

Cases

Carcieri v. Salazar, 129 SCt 1058 (2009).Google Scholar
Carr v. United States, 130 SCt 2229 (2010).Google Scholar
Marsh v. Nelson, 101 Pa. 51, 56 (1882).Google Scholar
McNeillv. United States, 131 SCt 2218 (2011).Google Scholar
R. v. Ireland, [1998] AC 147.Google Scholar