Advertisement

Post-Gricean Implicature Theories and Their Relevance for the Legal Realm

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

Abstract

In this chapter, I deal with certain influential neo-Gricean theories. These are theories that discuss Paul Grice’s idea of the maxims of conversation. I show how the four Gricean maxims can be reduced to fewer rules of this type: the Q and R principles proposed by L. Horn. I also argue that some theories that reduce the number of maxims, such as Relevance Theory, cannot be applied to the legal realm. Finally, I show that the theory I sketched in the second chapter is applicable regardless of the content or number of maxims we postulate at the ‘first’ level.

References

  1. 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
  2. Carston R (1998) Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicatures. In: Carston R, Uchida S (eds) Relevance theory: applications and implications. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 179–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carston R (2005) Relevance theory, Grice and the neo-Griceans: a response to Laurence Horn’s “Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics”. Intercult Pragmat 2.  https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.303
  4. 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, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Chauvin T, Stawecki T, Winczorek P (2014) Wstęp do prawoznawstwa [Introduction to Jurisprudence]. Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  6. Dobosz P (2011) Milczenie i bezczynność w prawie administracyjnym [Silence and omission in administrative law]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, KrakówGoogle Scholar
  7. Gizbert-Studnicki T (1983) O sposobach formułowania dyrektyw [A few remarks on the ways of formulating norms]. Studia Semiotyczne XIII:91–109Google Scholar
  8. Gizbert-Studnicki T (2010) Dyrektywy wykładni drugiego stopnia [Second order directives of interpretation]. In: Choduń A, Czepita S (eds) W poszukiwaniu dobra wspólnego - księga jubileuszowa Profesora Macieja Zielińskiego. Uniwersytet Szczeciński Rozprawy i Studia T., SzczecinGoogle Scholar
  9. Gizbert-Studnicki T (2012) Oryginalizm i living constitutionalism a koncepcja państwa prawnego [Originalism, living-constitutionalism and the concept of the rule of law]. In: Kardas P, Wróbel W, Sroka T (eds) Państwo prawa i prawo karne: Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Andrzeja Zolla. Wolters Kluwer, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  10. Grabowski A (1999) Judicial argumentation and pragmatics: a study on the extension of the theory of legal argumentation. Ksiegarnia Akademicka, KrakowGoogle Scholar
  11. Grabowski A (2015) Clara non sunt interpretanda vs. omnia sunt interpretanda: a never-ending controversy in Polish legal theory? Revus:6797.  https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.3326
  12. Grice P (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan J (eds) Syntax and semantics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Grice HP (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Hart HLA (2012) The concept of law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horn LR (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In: Schiffrin D (ed) Roundtable on languages and linguistics, meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Horn LR (2006) Implicature. In: The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell, MaldenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keenan EO (1976) The universality of conversational postulates. Lang Soc 5:67.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Macagno F, Walton D, Sartor G (2017) Pragmatic maxims and presumptions in legal interpretation. Law Philos.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9306-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matczak M (2007) Summa iniuria: o błędzie formalizmu w stosowaniu prawa [On the mistake of formalism in applying the law]. Wyd. 1. Wydawn.Nauk. “Scholar,” WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  20. Matczak M (2018) Why judicial formalism is incompatible with the rule of law. Can J Law Jurisprudence 31(1):61–85.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2018.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neale S (2016) Silent reference. In: Ostertag G (ed) Meanings and other things. Themes from the work of Stephen Schiffer. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Noveck IA (2001) When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78:165–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perry J, Korta K (2015) Pragmatics. Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyGoogle Scholar
  24. Recanati F (2017) Contextualism and polysemy. Dialectica 71:379–397.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-8361.12179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Searle J (1975) Indirect speech acts. Syntax Semantics 3:59–82Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Sperber D, Wilson D (2001) Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Sperber D, Wilson D (2004) On defining relevance. In: Grandy RE, Warner R (eds) Philosophical grounds of rationality: intentions, categories, ends, Reprinted. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Sperber D, Wilson D (2006) Relevance theory. In: Horn LR, Ward GL (eds) The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  30. Spyra T (2006) Granice wykładni prawa: znaczenie językowe tekstu prawnego jako granica wykładni [The limits of legal interpretation: the linguistic meaning of a legal text as a limit of interpretation]. Zakamycze, KrakówGoogle Scholar
  31. Wróblewski J (1990) Rozumienie prawa i jego wykładania [Understanding the law and interpreting]. Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, WrocławGoogle Scholar
  32. Wronkowska S (2005) Podstawowe pojęcia prawa i prawoznawstwa. Ars boni et aequi, PoznańGoogle Scholar
  33. Zieliński M (2012) Wykładnia prawa. Zasady, reguły, wskazówki [Legal interpretation. Principles, rules, hints], 6th edn. Lexis Nexis, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  34. Zieliński M, Radwański Z (2006) Wykładnia Prawa Cywilnego [The interpretation of civil law]. Stud Prawa Prywatnego 1–40Google Scholar
  35. Ziembiński Z (2000) Logika praktyczna [Practical logic]. Wydaw. Naukowe PWN, WarszawaGoogle 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