Advertisement

The Strategic Principle and the Maxim of Selectivity

  • Izabela Skoczeń
Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 127)

Abstract

In this chapter I provide an outline of the classical Gricean theory of implicatures, outlining the points in which it is not applicable to the legal realm. Next, I give an account of theories that have tried to modify the Gricean picture to fit it to the legal realm. The most important of them is Andrei Marmor’s account of ‘strategic speech’. I try to illustrate how Marmor’s account could profit from some modification so as to form an even broader explanatory theory of the legal discourse. Finally, I propose a second-order, strategic framework that explains linguistic exchanges in the realm of law.

References

  1. Antas J (2008) O kłamstwie i kłamaniu [On lies and lying]. Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych UNIVERSITAS, KrakówGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin JL (1962) How to do things with words: [the William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955], 2nd edn. [repr.]. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach K (1999) The myth of conventional implicature. Linguis Philos 22:327–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker S (2000) Is value content a component of conventional implicature? Analysis 60:268–279.  https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/60.3.268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brożek B (2008) Revisability versus defeasibility. Northern Ireland Leg Q 59:139–147Google Scholar
  6. Carston R (2013) Legal texts and canons of construction: a view from current pragmatic theory. In: Freeman MDA, Smith F (eds) Law and language, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark RL (2012) Meaningful games: exploring language with game theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Dworkin R (1978) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Finlay S (2005) Value and implicature. Ann Arbor MI Mich Publ Univ Mich Libr 5:1–20Google Scholar
  10. Fletcher G (2014) Pure versus hybrid expressivism and the Enigma of conventional implicature. In: Fletcher G, Ridge M (eds) Having it both ways: hybrid theories and modern metaethics. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Gizbert-Studnicki T (1983) O sposobach formułowania dyrektyw [A few remarks on the ways of formulating norms]. Stud Semiotyczne XIII:91–109Google Scholar
  12. Goldsworthy J (1994) Implications in language, law and the constitution. In: Lindell G, Zines L (eds) Future directions in Australian constitutional law: essays in honour of Professor Leslie Zines. Federation Press in association with the centre for international and public law and the law faculty. Australian National University, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  13. Goltzberg S (2016) Cooperation in legal discourse. In: Mohammed D, Lewiński M (eds) Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1rst European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 2015. College Publications, Londres, pp 113–128Google Scholar
  14. Grice HP (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Grice P (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan J (eds) Syntax and semantics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Habermas J (1979) Communication and the evolution of society. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hart HLA (1948) The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proc Aristot Soc 49:171–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leech GN (1983) Principles of pragmatics. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Levinson SC (1983) Pragmatics, nineteenth printing 2008. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Levinson SC (2000) Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Longworth G (2017) John Langshaw Austin. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition)Google Scholar
  22. Marmor A (2014) The language of law, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Marmor A (2016) Defeasibility and pragmatic indeterminacy in law. In: Capone A, Poggi F (eds) Pragmatics and law. Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, vol 7. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  24. Matczak M (2016) Does legal interpretation need Paul Grice? Reflections on Lepore and Stone’s imagination and convention. Polish J Philos 10(1):67–87.  https://doi.org/10.5840/pjphil20161014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matczak M (2017) Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal under PiS control descends into legal chaos. 11 January 2017. https://verfassungsblog.de/polands-constitutional-tribunal-under-pis-control-descends-into-legal-chaos/
  26. Poggi F (2011) Law and conversational implicatures. Int J Semiotics Law - Revue Intertnationale pour la Sémiotique Juridique 24:21–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9201-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poggi F (2016) Grice, the law and the linguistic special case thesis. In: Capone A, Poggi F (eds) Pragmatics and law: philosophical perspectivesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Recanati F (2002) Unarticulated constituents. Linguist Philos 25:299–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadurski W (2014) Searching for Illicit motives: constitutional theory of freedom of speech, equal protection, and separation of state and religion. Sydndy Law School Legal Studies Research Paper 61Google Scholar
  30. Sbisà M (2017) Implicitness in normative texts. In: Poggi F, Capone A (eds) Pragmatics and law. Springer, Cham, pp 23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Searle J (1999a) The Chinese room. In: Wilson RA, Keil FC (eds) The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Searle JR (1978) Literal meaning. Erkenntnis 13:207–224.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Searle JR (1999b) Mind, language, and society: philosophy in the real world, 1st edn. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Skoczeń I (2011) Law, language and their influence on cognition. In: Argumentation 2011: International Conference on Alternative Methods of Argumentation in Law: Conference ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  35. Skoczeń I (2012) How to reach a compromise on compromise? In: Argumentation 2012: International Conference on Alternative Methods of Argumentation in Law: Conference ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  36. Skoczeń I (2013) Why do pragmatics matter in the legal framework? In: Argumentation 2013: International Conference on Alternative Methods of Argumentation in Law: Conference ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  37. Skoczeń I (2015a) Implicatures within the legal context: a rule-based analysis of the possible content of conversational maxims in law. In: Araszkiewicz M, Banaś P, Gizbert-Studnicki T, Płeszka K (eds) Problems of normativity, rules and rule-following. Springer, Cham, pp 351–362Google Scholar
  38. Skoczeń I (2015b) Thick concepts, implicatures and the nature of law. In: Argumentation 2015: International Conference on Alternative Methods of Argumentation in LawGoogle Scholar
  39. Skoczeń I (2016) Czy modny i sprawiedliwy mogą mieć ze sobą coś wspólnego? – czyli kilka słów o thick terms, thick concepts oraz thick properties [Do the fashionable and the just have anything in common? a few words on thick terms, thick concepts and thick properties]. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa oraz Filozofii Społecznej 12Google Scholar
  40. Slocum BG (2016) Conversational implicatures and legal texts: conversational implicatures and legal texts. Ratio Juris 29:23–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smolak M (2012) Wykładnia celowościowa z perspektywy pragmatycznej [Teleological interpretation from a pragmatic perspective]. Wolters Kluwer Polska, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  42. Sperber D, Wilson D (2006) Relevance theory. In: Horn LR, Ward GL (eds) The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  43. Sternau M, Ariel M, Giora R, Fein O (2015) Levels of interpretation: new tools for characterizing intended meanings. J Pragmat 84:86–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wronkowska S (2012) Komentarz do zasad techniki prawodawczej: z dnia 20 czerwca 2002 r [Commentary to the rules on legislative text drafting]. Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  45. Wronkowska S, Zieliński M (1985) O korespondencji dyrektyw redagowania i interpretowania tekstu prawnego [On the correspondence of directives on drafting and interpreting legal text]. Studia Prawnicze, pp 301–327Google Scholar
  46. Załuski W (2013) Game theory in jurisprudence. Copernicus Center Press, KrakówGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Izabela Skoczeń
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Legal Theory and Jagiellonian Centre for Law, Language and PhilosophyJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations