Advertisement

The Role of Linguistics in Legal Analysis

  • Peter Goodrich
Part of the Language, Discourse, Society book series (LDS)

Abstract

Legal theory has traditionally made a fairly extensive use of the philosophy of language. At a very general level it has frequently been argued that linguistic philosophy is a valuable heuristic tool for the elaboration of general questions concerning the institutional nature of law and the meaning of key legal terms. At a more substantive level it has also been claimed that linguistic methodology and the various exegetical and hermeneutic traditions of textual analysis may aid in the practical endeavour of explaining the intricacies of rule interpretation and rule application. Despite such claims, however, the role of linguistics — both historical and potential — in legal analysis has never been an object of systematic study. It is indeed something of a paradox that while problems of definition, of interpretation and of vagueness, ambiguity and polysemy generally are constantly referred to by the major theories of law, no attempt has been made to analyse the specifically linguistic basis of such problems. If one concedes that the major schools of legal thought are differentiated, as much as anything else, by the divergence of their approaches to the theory of adjudication and of law application, the absence of any encounter with linguistics might well be taken to indicate the subordination of the will to truth to the need to conceal; the privileging of ideological concerns over the pursuit of knowledge.

Keywords

Legal Theory Legal Norm Legal Analysis Legal Positivism Legal Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    F. Nietzsche, ‘We Philologists’ in The Case of Wagner (Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis, 1911) p. 144.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Edelman, Ownership of the Image (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979)Google Scholar
  3. M. Pêcheux, Language, Semantics and Ideology (London: Macmillan, 1982) in particular — have been drawn into the somewhat irrelevant elaboration of this level of comparison. It will be argued in Chapter 7 that the evaluation of the epistemological status of the legal subject is of less import than the analysis of the manner in which such a category actually operates within substantive legal discourseGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    H. L. A. Hart, ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ (1958) 71, Harvard Law Review 601–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. cf. also R. S. Summers, ‘The New Analytic Jurists’ (1966) 4, New York University Law Review, 861Google Scholar
  6. R. S. Summers (ed.), Essays in Legal Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968) chapter 1Google Scholar
  7. D. N. MacCormick, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) chapter 2Google Scholar
  8. P. Milton, ‘Reason and Criticism in Legal Theory’ (1980) 2, Liverpool Law Review, 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 4.
    L. Febvre and H. J. Martin, The Coming of the Book (London: New Left Books, 1976) chapter 1Google Scholar
  10. W. Ong, Orality and Literacy (London: Methuen, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. For other accounts, see F. H. Bauml, ‘Varieties and Consequences of Medieval Literacy and Illiteracy’ (1980) 55, Speculum, 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. J. Derrida, ‘Scribble (writing-power)’ (1979) 58, Yale French Studies, 116Google Scholar
  13. 5.
    On the recent history of the term code, cf. F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (London: Peter Owen, 1966) pp. 16ffGoogle Scholar
  14. U. Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976) pp. 3–46Google Scholar
  15. R. Barthes, S/Z (London: Cape, 1975)Google Scholar
  16. U. Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (London: Macmillan, 1984) pp. 164–82Google Scholar
  17. 6.
    C. Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979)Google Scholar
  18. C. Levi Strauss, The Elementary Structures of Kinship (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1969).Google Scholar
  19. 7.
    U. Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, p. 168.Google Scholar
  20. 8.
    Cited from Notes Inedites by S. Timpanaro, On Materialism (London: New Left Books, 1975) pp. 157–8.Google Scholar
  21. 9.
    U. Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, p. 180.Google Scholar
  22. 10.
    See S. Paulson, ‘Material and Formal Authorisation in Kelsen’s Pure Theory’ (1980) 39, Cambridge Law Journal, 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Troper. ‘Kelsen, la Theorie de l’Interpretation et la Structure de l’Ordre Juridique’ (1981) 35, Revue Internationale de Philosophic, 518Google Scholar
  24. O. Weinberger, ‘Logic and the Pure Theory of Law’ (1981) ASLP conference, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  25. S. Paulson, ‘On the Status of the Lex Posterior Derogating Rule’ (1983) 5, Liverpool Law Review, 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. As to Kelsen’s later position, see H. Kelsen, Essays in Legal and Moral Philosophy (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973) introduction and chapter 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 11.
    J. W. Harris, ‘Kelsen’s Concept of Authority’ (1977) 36, Cambridge Law Journal, 353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. J. W. Harris, Law and Legal Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar
  29. I. Stewart, ‘Kelsen and the Exegetical Tradition in Jurisprudence’ in R. H. Tur and W. Twining (eds), Essays on Kelsen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar
  30. 12.
    H. Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967) p. 5.Google Scholar
  31. 15.
    See also H. Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1945) pp. 216ff.Google Scholar
  32. See H. Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, pp. 198–9Google Scholar
  33. Essays in Legal and Moral Philosophy, pp. 240–2Google Scholar
  34. Harris, ‘Kelsen’s Concept of Authority’, pp. 356ffGoogle Scholar
  35. 16.
    Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, p. 22.Google Scholar
  36. 17.
    M. S. Moore, ‘The Semantics of Judging’ (1982) 54, Southern California Law Review, 163.Google Scholar
  37. 18.
    Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, p. 5.Google Scholar
  38. 19.
    H. Kelsen, ‘On the basis of legal validity’ (1981) 26, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 20.
    B. S. Jackson, Semiotics and Legal Theory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985) chapter 10.Google Scholar
  40. 21.
    Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, p. 4.Google Scholar
  41. 22.
    Cf. J. Lenoble et F. Ost, Droit, Mythe et Raison (Bruxelles: Facultes Universitaire Saint-Louis, 1980) pp. 512ff.Google Scholar
  42. 23.
    Kelsen, The Pure Theory of Law, pp. 5,7ff.Google Scholar
  43. 24.
    H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) p. 121.Google Scholar
  44. 25.
    See, e.g., Hart, The Concept of Law, pp. 15ff., ‘What is important is that … the several instances of a general term are often linked together in quite different ways from that postulated by the simple form of definition. They may be linked by analogy…. They may be linked by different relationships to a central element…. Or again…the several instances may be different constituents of some complex activity.’Google Scholar
  45. 26.
    H. L. A. Hart, ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’. p. 612Google Scholar
  46. cf. also, D. N. MacCormick, H. L. A. Hart (London: Arnold, 1981) p. 125Google Scholar
  47. K. Baldinger, Semantics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980) pp. 42–61Google Scholar
  48. 27.
    Hart, The Concept of Law, pp. 131ff.Google Scholar
  49. 28.
    See M. S. Moore, ‘The Semantics of Judging’, 167–70; 271–81Google Scholar
  50. W. B. Michaels, ‘Against Formalism’ (1979) 1, Poetics Today, 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 29.
    H. L. A. Hart, Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953) p. 5.Google Scholar
  52. 30.
    For commentary on this aspect of Austin’s work, see J. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) pp. 17ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. B. Harrison, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language (London: Macmillan, 1979) pp. 165–83Google Scholar
  54. S. Hervey, Semiotic Perspectives (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983) chapter 4Google Scholar
  55. 31.
    D.N. MacCormick ‘Law as Institutional Fact’ (1974) 90, Law Quarterly Review, 102.Google Scholar
  56. 32.
    H. L. A. Hart, ‘Signs and Words’ (1952) Philosophical Quarterly, 59 (p. 62).Google Scholar
  57. 33.
    See, e.g., Hart, The Concept of Law, pp. 125ff.Google Scholar
  58. 34.
    See, e.g., J. Stone, Legal System and Lawyer’s Reasoning (London: Stevens, 1964) pp. 29–41Google Scholar
  59. J. Derrida, ‘Signature, Event, Context’ (1977) 1, Glyph, 172: ‘One writes in order to communicate something to those who are absent. The absence of the sender, of the receiver, from the mark that he abandons, and which cuts itself off from him and continues to produce effects independently of his presence and of the present actuality of his intentions, indeed after his death, his absence, which moreover belongs to the structure of all writing,’ (p. 177)Google Scholar
  60. See also J. Culler, On Deconstruction (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983) pp. 110–25.Google Scholar
  61. 35.
    For ease of reference see G. Lepschy, A Survey of Structural Linguistics (London: Deutsch, 1982) and the extensive bibliographical essay contained therein.Google Scholar
  62. Also O. Ducrot and T. Todorov, Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Sciences of Language (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981)Google Scholar
  63. A. J. Greimas, and J. Courtes, Semiotics and Language (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982)Google Scholar
  64. 36.
    The first general studies were R. Coward and J. Ellis, Language and Materialism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977)Google Scholar
  65. D. Silverman and B. Torode, The Material Word (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980)Google Scholar
  66. French developments are usefully summarised in J. Kalinowski et E. Landowski, La Recherche en Sciences Humaines (Paris: Editions de CRNS, 1981) pp. 125ff.Google Scholar
  67. See also the bibliography to P. Goodrich, ‘Law and Language: An Historical and Critical Introduction’ (1984) 12, Journal of Law and Society, 173, 200–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. For English language applications of socio-linguistic models, cf. P. Carlen, Magistrates’ Justice (London: Martin Robertson, 1976)Google Scholar
  69. F. Burton and P. Carlen, Official Discourse (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979)Google Scholar
  70. W. O’Barr, Linguistic Evidence (London: Academic Press, 1982)Google Scholar
  71. R. Dingwall, and P. Lewis (eds), The Sociology of the Professions (London: Macmillan, 1983) chapter 5Google Scholar
  72. 37.
    See G. Sampson, Schools in Linguistics (London: Hutchinson, 1980)Google Scholar
  73. R. Fowler (ed.), Language and Control (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979)Google Scholar
  74. R. Fowler, Literature as Social Discourse (London: Batsford, 1981)Google Scholar
  75. M. A. K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic (London: Arnold, 1978)Google Scholar
  76. The other line of development of relevance is related to the elaboration of a theory of discursive processes begun in the work of M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (London: Tavistock, 1972), and variously continued, though in my opinion most effectively in the work ofGoogle Scholar
  77. M. Pecheux, Language, Semantics and Ideology (London: Macmillan, 1982)Google Scholar
  78. See also P. Goodrich, ‘Materialism and Linguistics’ (1982) 32, Radical Philosophy, 34.Google Scholar
  79. 38.
    See R. Harris, The Language Myth (London: Duckworth, 1981)Google Scholar
  80. G. P. Baker and P. M. S. Hacker, Language, Sense and Non-Sense (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984) chapter 8Google Scholar
  81. 39.
    R. Fowler, Literature as Social Discourse, p. 21.Google Scholar
  82. See also M. A. K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, pp. 165ff.Google Scholar
  83. 40.
    M. Pêcheux, Language, Semantics and Ideology, p. 112.Google Scholar
  84. 42.
    J. Lenoble et F. Ost, Droit, Mythe et Raison, p. 83.Google Scholar
  85. 43.
    See The Discourse of Language,’ translated as an appendix to M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (New York: Pantheon Books, 1981)Google Scholar
  86. see also M. Foucault, Power/Knowledge (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980)Google Scholar
  87. M. Foucault, The History of Sexuality (London: Allen Lane, 1979)Google Scholar
  88. For critical accounts of the specifically linguistic issues raised, see T. Pateman, ‘Linguistics as a Branch of Critical Theory’ (1981) 14/15, University of East Anglia Papers in Linguistics, 1Google Scholar
  89. For interesting discussion of related issues with regard to gender specific linguistic practices, see A. Assiter, ‘Did Man Make Language?’ (1983) 34, Radical Philosophy, 25Google Scholar
  90. D. Cameron, ‘Sexism and Semantics’ (1984) 36, Radical Philosophy, 14Google Scholar
  91. D. Cameron, Feminism and Linguistic Theory (London: Macmillan, 1985)Google Scholar
  92. See also L. McKluskie, ‘Women’s Language and Literature’ (1983) 14, Feminist Review, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 44.
    R. Fowler, Language and Control, p. 185.Google Scholar
  94. See also G. Kress and R. Hodge, Language as Ideology (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979)Google Scholar
  95. H. Davis and P. Walton (eds), Language, Image, Media (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983)Google Scholar
  96. The most original material is to be found in V. Volosinov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (New York: Academic Press, 1973) andGoogle Scholar
  97. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination (Austin: Texas University Press, 1981) and will be analysed in detail in chapter 6Google Scholar
  98. 46.
    M. Pêcheux, Language, Semantics and Ideology, p. 64.Google Scholar
  99. 48.
    I would suggest that its meaning may be best clarified by consideration of its basis in a linguistics of communication or dialogue, on which cf. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: ‘no living word relates to its object in a singular way: between the word and its object, between the word and the speaking subject, there exists an elastic environment of other, alien words about the same object, the same theme …’ (pp. 276ff.). The subsequent development of the concept of intertextuality by, amongst others, J. Kristeva, La Revolution du Language Poetique (Paris: Editions Seuil, 1974) is derivative of Bakhtin’s work and utilises the concept of dialogue or dialogism in the more specific context of textual criticism: ‘whatever the semantic content of a text, its condition of existence as a signifying practice presupposes the existence of other discourses’ (pp. 388–9).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Peter Goodrich 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Goodrich
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Newcastle-upon-TyneUK

Personalised recommendations