Advertisement

Interpretive Games

  • Pierluigi Chiassoni
Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 128)

Abstract

Which theory of legal meaning (the meaning of legal provisions) is to be deemed adequate from a theoretical standpoint? Several candidates run for the prize. The chapter purports to provide a first line of argument in favour of a construction conception, by arguing against a couple of theories of legal interpretation—the “word-meaning theory” and the “sentence-meaning theory”—worked out by influential legal theorists with an eye to the philosophy of language. In view of casting light on the shortcomings of these theories, it introduces the notion of interpretive game, outlines a general theory of interpretive games, brings to the fore the basic features of the conversational interpretation game, and, finally, compares it with the statutory interpretation game, as a paradigmatic instance of legal interpretation game.

References

  1. Alchourrón CE, Bulygin E (1989 [1991]) Los límites de la lógica y el razonamiento jurídico. In: Alchourrón CE, Bulygin E (eds) Análisis lógico y derecho. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid, pp 303–328 [also published as: Limits of logic and legal reasoning. In: Martino A (ed) Expert systems in law. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992, pp 9–27]Google Scholar
  2. Bianchi C (2005) Pragmatica del linguaggio, 2nd edn. Laterza, Roma-BariGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobbio N (1950 [1976]) Scienza del diritto e analisi del linguaggio. In: Scarpelli U (ed) Diritto e analisi del linguaggio. Milano, Comunità, pp 287–324Google Scholar
  4. Brandom RB (1994) Making it explicit. Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulygin E (1991 [1994]) On Legal Interpretation. In: Koch H-J, Neumann U (eds) Praktische Vernunft und Rechtsanwendung / Legal system and practical reason, ARSP-Beiheft 53. Franz Steiner, Stuttgart, pp 11–22Google Scholar
  6. Caffi C (2008) Sei lezioni di pragmatica linguistica. Name, GenovaGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrió GR (1965) Notas sobre derecho y lenguaje. Abeledo-Perrot, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiassoni P (2011) Técnicas de interpretación jurídica. Breviario para juristas. Marcial Pons, Madrid-Barcelona-Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiassoni P (2016d) The heritage of the 19th century: the age of interpretive cognitivism. In: Pattaro E, Roversi C (eds) Legal philosophy in the twentieth century: the civil law world, Tome 2: main orientations and topics. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 565–600Google Scholar
  10. Dascal M, Wróblewski J (1988) Transparency and doubt: understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law. Law Philos 7:203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eco U (1990) I limiti dell’interpretazione. Bompiani, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  12. Eco U (1992) Interpretation and overinterpretation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grice PH (1967 [1989]) Logic and conversation. In: Grice PH (ed) Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 22–40Google Scholar
  14. Hare RM (1949 [1971]) Imperative sentences. In: Hare RM (ed) Practical inferences. Macmillan, London, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  15. Hare RM (1952) The language of morals. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Third edition, with a Postscript edited by PA Bulloch and J Raz, And with an introduction and notes by L. Green. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013Google Scholar
  17. Hart HLA (1977 [1983]) American jurisprudence through English Eyes: the Nightmare and the Noble Dream. In: Hart HLA (ed) Essays in jurisprudence and philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 123–143Google Scholar
  18. Kosko B (1994) Fuzzy thinking. The new science of fuzzy logic. Flamingo, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Moreso JJ (1997a) La indeterminación del derecho y la interpretación de la Constitución. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Madrid [Eng. Tr. Legal indeterminacy and constitutional interpretation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998]Google Scholar
  20. Moreso JJ (1997b) Significado, interpretación y proposiciones normativas. Apunte para un debate. Unpublished presentation at the “Jurisprudence Workshop”, Dipartimento di Cultura Giuridica “Giovanni Tarello” (Genoa, December 15, 1997)Google Scholar
  21. Moreso JJ (1999) De nuevo sobre la Vigilia. A modo de réplica a mis críticos italianos. Unpublished presentation at the “Jurisprudence Workshop”, Dipartimento di Cultura Giuridica “Giovanni Tarello” (Genoa, May 20, 1999)Google Scholar
  22. Peczenik A, Wróblewski J (1985) Fuzziness and transformation: towards explaining legal reasoning. Theoria 51:24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ross A (1958) On law and justice. Stevens & Sons, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Scarpelli U (1959) Contributo alla semantica del linguaggio normative. Nuova edizione. Giuffrè, Milano, 1985Google Scholar
  25. Soames S (2007) Interpreting legal texts: what is, and what is not, special about the law. Paper presented at “An International Conference on Law, Language, and Interpretation”, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland, April 1–2, 2007Google Scholar
  26. Soames S (2011) Toward a theory of legal interpretation. In: Soames S (ed) Analytic philosophy in America: and other historical and contemporary essays. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. Soames S (2014) Deferentialism, living originalism, and the constitution. USC School of Philosophy, Draft June 2014Google Scholar
  28. Soler S (1962) La interpretación de la ley. Ariel, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  29. Tarello G (1980) L’interpretazione della legge. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  30. von Wright GH (1963) Norm and action: a logical enquiry. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Wittgenstein L (1953 [1958]) Philosophical investigations, 2nd edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Wittgenstein L (1958) Preliminary studies for the “philosophical investigations” generally known as the blue and brown books. Harper Torchbooks, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Wróblewski J (1983) Fuzziness of legal system. In: Kangas U (ed) Essays in legal theory in honor of Kaarle Makkonen. Oikeustiede, 16:311–330Google Scholar
  34. Wróblewski J (1985) Constitución y teoría general de la interpretación jurídica. Civitas, MadridGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierluigi Chiassoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di GiurisprudenzaUniversità di GenovaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations