Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:15:42.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some linguistic properties of legal notices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Nicholas Allott  and
Benjamin Shaer
Nicholas Allott
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
Benjamin Shaer
Affiliation:
Carleton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we consider legal notices of various forms, including imperative, indicative, and non-sentential. We argue that these convey various illocutionary forces depending on their particular content. In particular, those that prohibit actions — unlike laws that do so — typically have “directive” illocutionary force, with different linguistic classes of legal notices achieving this force through different means, given their distinct linguistic properties. We propose a “bare phrase” treatment of non-sentential notices, whereby these are underlyingly and not just superficially non-sentential; and a semantic treatment in terms of Discourse Representation Theory, which perspicuously describes their contribution to interpretation. Finally, we argue that assigning such sparse syntactic and semantic representations to non-sentential notices has conceptual and empirical advantages over analyses that posit richer underlying structure, capturing a broader range of data, including patterns involving default case and the absence of articles, and minimizing the need to posit linguistic ambiguity.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous considérons une variété d’annonces juridiques dont des formulations à l’impératif, à l’affirmatif et non sentencielles. Nous affirmons que ces formulations comportent diverses forces illocutionnaires selon leur contenu spécifique. En particulier, celles qui interdisent des actions — à la différence de lois qui interdisent—ont une force illocutionnaire “directive”; cette force est déterminée différemment selon les caractéristiques linguistiques particulières de chacune. Nous proposons de traiter les annonces non sentencielles en tant que syntagmes «nus», ce qui fait que celles-ci sont non pas seulement superficiellement mais fondamentalement non sentencielles; et nous proposons un traitement sémantique en termes de la théorie de représentation du discours, ce qui décrit clairement leur contribution à l’interprétation. En dernier lieu, nous soutenons que l’attribution de représentations syntactiques et sémantiques minimales à des annonces non sentencielles comporte des avantages conceptuelles et empiriques sur des analyses qui postulent une structure fondamentale riche; notre analyse permet de rendre compte de plus de données, y compris la manifestation des cas par défaut et l’absence d’articles, et minimise le besoin d’invoquer l’ambiguïté linguistique.

Keywords

illocutionary forcedirectivelegal noticenon-sententialsmall clause analysisforce illocutionnairedirectifannonce légalenon sentencieianalyse de petites propositions
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. 43 - 62
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

Allott, Nicholas and Shaer, Benjamin. 2012a. Legal norms: Grammatical form and illocutionary force. Paper presented at the Pragmatics of Legal Language workshop, Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature, University of Oslo, May 2012.Google Scholar
Allott, Nicholas and Shaer, Benjamin. 2012b. The illocutionary force of laws. Ms., University of Oslo and Carleton University.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press [1st ed., 1962].Google Scholar
Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert M.. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barton, Ellen. 1990. Nonsentential constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barton, Ellen and Progovac, Ljiljana. 2005. Nonsententials in minimalism. In Ellipsis and non-sentential speech, ed. Elugardo, Reinaldo and Stainton, Robert, 71–93. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, ed. Kempson, Ruth, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. Linguistische Berichte 8:103–127.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On phases. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fortin, Catherine. 2007. Some (not all) nonsententials are only a phase. Lingua 117:67–94.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. 2005. There is no textualist position. San Diego Law Review 42:629–650.Google Scholar
Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, language and meaning, vol. 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart and Beaver, David I.. 2011. Discourse Representation Theory. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Available at: plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/discourse-representation-theory/.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2009. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. Reprinted in Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, ed. Shaer, Benjamin, Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner, and Maienborn, Claudia, 331–347. New York: Routledge [1991].Google Scholar
Hart, Herbert L.A. 1958. Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review 71:593–629.Google Scholar
Hart, Herbert L.A. 1961. The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hewson, John. 1972. Article and noun in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition and focus. London: Blackwell.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
Kamp, Hans, Genabith, Josef van, and Reyle, Uwe. 2011. Discourse Representation Theory. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 15, ed. Gabbay, Dov and Guenthner, Franz, 125–394. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 1986. It is hereby performed…: Explorations in legal speech acts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–65.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2011. Truth in law. University of Southern California Legal Studies Working Paper Series 73. Available at: Iaw.bepress.com/usclwps/lss/art73.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:661–738.Google Scholar
Paesani, Kate. 2006. Extending the nonsentential analysis: The case of special registers. In The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. Progovac, Ljiljana, 147–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2006. The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. Progovac, Ljiljana, 33–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Recanati, Francois. 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4:295–329.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2008. A critical guide to vehicles in the park. New York University Law Review 83:1109–1134.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4:205–238.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Speech acts, ed. Cole, Peter and Morgan, J.L., 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5:1–24.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin. 2007. Names as nominal idioms. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin. 2009. German and English left-peripheral elements and the “orphan” analysis of non-integration. In Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, ed. Shaer, Benjamin, Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner, and Maienborn, Claudia, 366–397. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Solan, Laurence. 2010. The language of statutes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert. 2006. Words and thoughts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 1988. Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Human agency: Language, duty, and value. Philosophical essays in honor of J.O. Urmson, ed. Dancy, Jonathan, Moravcsik, Julius M.E., and Taylor, C.C.W., 77–101. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar