Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:04:08.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPECTED APPLICATIONS, CONTEXTUAL ENRICHMENT, AND OBJECTIVE COMMUNICATIVE CONTENT: THE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR CONCEPTION TEXTUALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2017

Hrafn Asgeirsson
Hrafn Asgeirsson*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Textualist and originalist legal reasoning usually involves something like the following thesis, whether implicitly or explicitly: the legal content of a statute or constitutional clause is the linguistic content that a reasonable member of the relevant audience would, knowing the context and conversational background, associate with the enactment. In this paper, I elucidate some important aspects of this thesis, emphasizing the important role that contextual enrichment plays in textualist and originalist legal reasoning. The aim is to show how the linguistic framework underlying sophisticated versions of new textualism and public-meaning originalism can help to shed important light on the plausibility of what John Perry calls conception textualism. Contra Perry, I do not think that conception textualism—arguably best classified as a version of expected-applications originalism—is “confused, implausible, and unworkable.” I also briefly compare my linguistic case for conception textualism with Justice Scalia's nonlinguistic argument for it, the main premise of which concerns the constitutive function of constitutions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Theory , Volume 21 , Issue 3-4 , December 2015 , pp. 115 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Asgeirsson, Hrafn. (2016) “Can Legal Practice Adjudicate between Theories of Vagueness?” In Keill, G. & Poscher, R., eds., Vagueness and the Law: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives, 95–126. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asgeirsson, Hrafn. (2017) “On the Possibility of Non-Literal Legislative Speech.” In Capone, A. & Poggi, F., eds., Pragmatics and Law: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. (Dordrecht: Springer).Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1994) “Conversational Impliciture.” Mind and Language 9: 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. (2002) “Seemingly Semantic Intuitions.” In Campbell, J. Keim, O'Rourke, M. & Shier, D., eds., Meaning and Truth, 21–33. (New York: Seven Bridges Press).Google Scholar
Bach, K. (2006) “The Top 10 Misconceptions about Implicature.” In Birner, B.J. & Ward, G., eds., Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).Google Scholar
Balkin, J. (2007) “Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption.” Constitutional Commentary 24: 427.Google Scholar
Barnett, R. (1999) “An Originalism for Nonoriginalists.” Loyola Law Review 45: 611.Google Scholar
Bishop, J.P. (1882) “Commentaries on the Written Laws and Their Interpretation.” (Boston: Little, Brown).Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2010) “Explicit Communication and ‘Free’ Pragmatic Enrichment.” In Soria, B. & Romero, E., eds., Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston's Pragmatics, 217–285. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Easterbrook, F.H. (1988) “The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 11: 59.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, F.H. (1990) “What Does Legislative History Tell Us?” Chicago-Kent Law Review 66: 441.Google Scholar
Geis, M.L. (1995) “The Meaning of Meaning in the Law.” Washington University Law Quarterly 73: 1125.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, Jeffrey. (1997) “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation.” Federal Law Review 25: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsworthy, Jeffrey. (2005) “Moderate and Strong Intentionalism: Knapp and Michaels Revisited.” San Diego Law Review 42: 669.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. (2011) “Legislation as Communication? Legal Interpretation and the Study of Linguistic Communication.” In Marmor, A. & Soames, S., eds., The Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law, 217–256. (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. (2004) “How Facts Make Law.” Legal Theory 10: 157–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. & Litman, H. (1998) “The Meaning of Original Meaning.” Georgetown Law Review 86: 569–619.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981) “The Notional Category of Modality.” In Eikmeyer, H.J. & Rieser, H., eds., Words, Worlds, and Contexts, 38–74. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).Google Scholar
Lawson, G. (1992) “Proving the Law.” Northwestern University Law Review 86: 859.Google Scholar
MacCallum, G. (1966) “Legislative Intent.” Yale Law Journal 75: 754–787.Google Scholar
Manning, J.F. (2003) “The Absurdity Doctrine.” Harvard Law Review 116: 2387–2486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, J.F. (2005) “Textualism and Legislative Intent.” Virginia Law Review 91: 419–450.Google Scholar
Marmor, A. (2011) “Can the Law Imply More Than It Says?” In Marmor, A. & Soames, S., eds., Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law, 83–104. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Marmor, A. (2013) “Truth in Law.” In Freeman, M. & Smith, F., eds., Current Legal Issues: Law and Language, 45–61. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Marmor, A. (2014) The Language of Law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Neale, S. (2005) “Pragmatism and Binding.” In Szabó, Z., ed., Semantics versus Pragmatics, 165–285. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, S. (2007) “On Location.” In O'Rourke, M. & Washington, C., eds., Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry, 251–393. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostertag, G. (2012) “Cruelty and Kinds: Scalia, Dworkin, and Constitutional Pragmatics .” (Unpublished manuscript on file with author).Google Scholar
Perry, J. (2011) “Textualism and the Discovery of Rights.” In Marmor, A. & Soames, S., eds., Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law, 105–129. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. (1972) “Legal Principles and the Limits of Law.” Yale Law Journal 81: 823–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004) Literal Meaning. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2012) “Pragmatic Enrichment and Conversational Implicature.” In Fara, D. Graff & Russell, G., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, 67–78. (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Scalia, A. (1987) “Address before the Attorney General's Conference on Economic Liberties in Washington, D.C. (June 14, 1986).” In Original Meaning Jurisprudence: A Sourcebook, 101. Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Scalia, A. (1997) A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. (Princeton N.J.: Princeto n University Press).Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (1972) Meaning. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Smith, Dale. (2016) A Problem for the Equivalence Thesis. (Unpublished manuscript on file with author).Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2008) “Drawing the Line between Meaning and Implicature—and Relating both to Assertion.” Nous 42: 440–465.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2011) “What Vagueness and Inconsistency Tell Us about Interpretation.” In Marmor, A. & Soames, S., eds., Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law, 31–57. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solum, L. (2008) Semantic Originalism. Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 07-24. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1120244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solum, L. (2011) “What Is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory.” In Huscroft, G. & Miller, B.W., eds., The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, 12–41. (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Solum, L. (2013) “Communicative Content and Legal Content.” Notre Dame Law Review 89; 479–520.Google Scholar
Whittington, K. (2004) “The New Originalism.” Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2: 599.Google Scholar