Abstract
De Haan’s PhD Dissertation in Amsterdam, 1916, focuses on three essential legal concepts: on ‘liability’, on ‘responsibility’ and on accountability’. The three form keystones of Civil Law and its architecture of expressiveness. No wonder that linguistic and in particular signific/semiotic considerations play a role as preferred instrument to observe and to judge a lawyer’s professional activity. The word, its conception and use, are of importance here: The question “what meaning has this word” is often posed, he claims. And: “A word is not a living organism that possesses meanings like humans possess property. The same incorrect thought is in the expression “What is the meaning of this word”. One should never underestimate the fatal influence of an incorrect metaphor”. Legal science as well as linguistics suffered because comparative metaphors were given explanatory functions. A word is its meaning with something inexplicable added, a something that binds meanings into a word. One should therefore formulate the question correctly, and say: “what meaning is this word?” This is the platform to reach deeper insight into the three mentioned words/ideas/concepts that are so crucial for a lawyer. A social dimension is unexpectedly of importance: incorrectly used or phrased words can be understood! Criteria for correctness are difficult to formulate in absoluto. But, claims De Haan: the better word is always better understood! This idea should guide the uses and abuses of words in legal language: a significs idea for which the Amsterdam Faculty awarded him a “cum laude” at the occasion of the presentation and defense of this thesis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Source: JACOB ISRAËL DE HAAN: Rechtskundige Significa en hare toepassing op de begrippen: “Aansprakelijk, verantwoordelijk, toerekeningsvatbaar” Academisch Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor in de Rechtswetenschap aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, Dinsdag 1 Februari 1916,W. Versluys, Amsterdam 1916. 273 pag. Ch 1.: pp 14 – 40, Ch 2.: pp. 137 – 140, Ch 4.: pp 160 – 168, 176 – 178, 266 –268, 270—273
(Translation Dutch/English by Eds.)
- 2.
Original page numbers
- 3.
‘Uitwassen der Crimineele Anthropologie’ [Excesses of Criminal Psychology] in De Gids, 1901, I, p. 50.
- 4.
F. Mauthner, Part II, Ch. VII, p. 263.
- 5.
Albert Verwey in “De Beweging”, 1910, p. 99.
- 6.
Prof. Molengraaf in a book review in Het Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn [The Legal Scientist Magazine] 1911, p. 362.
- 7.
M. Bréal, Êssai de sémantique, [Essay on Semantics] 1911, p. 3.
- 8.
Wilhelm Wundt: Völkerpsychologie [Psychology of Peoples], Vol. II, Ch. 7.
- 9.
Hugo Schuchart, in De Nieuwe Taalgids [The New Language Guide], Vol. II, p. 17.
- 10.
Jacob Israël de Haan: Het recht op slechtheid [The right to wickedness] in De Beweging, 1915, p. 214.
- 11.
J. H. van den Bosch: Taaleenheid in spreken, schrijven en spellen [Linguistic Unity in Speaking, Writing and Spelling] in; De Nieuwe Taalgids, III, p. 30. F. Paulhan, review of Il linguaggio dei filosofi [The Language of the Philosophers] by G. Ranzoli in Revue Philosophique, 1912. Mauthner, Vol. III, Ch. VIII: Situation and Sprache [Situation and Language].
- 12.
The meaning of the word ‘contrasting’ or ‘opposite’ is not fixed. Opposite of ‘asking’ is often ‘answering’, but the opposite of ‘asking’ is ‘not asking’. To understand Hegelian philosophy a fundamental question!
- 13.
Dr. E. Landau: Die gegensinnigen Wörter im Alt- und Neuhebräischen sprachvergleichend dargestellt, [Words in contrary senses in Old and New Hebrew, a comparative linguistic study]
- 14.
Id., p. 25: Psychologische Problemlösung [Psychological problem solving]
- 15.
Jacob Israël de Haan: Taal en Rechtswetenschap, [Language and Legal Science] in: De Beweging, 1915.
- 16.
‘Cluo’ is in old Latin ‘hearing’, later developed as ‘audire’ [auditing]. Bréal, p. 96 and 105.
- 17.
Wundt on ‘Lautmetapher’ [Sound-metaphor], Vol. I, p. 348. His representations on the Hebrew verb are not entirely correct. P. 362–364.
- 18.
Albert Dauzat: La vie du language [The life of language] Ch 1, 4. Dauzat does not clearly distinguish comparative and explicative linguistic images.
- 19.
Mauthner, Vol. III, p. 234.
- 20.
Lady Victoria Welby: What is Meaning, p. 5.
- 21.
Lady Victoria Welby: Significs and Language, p. 9.
- 22.
Allbutt: Words and Things, in: The Lancet, 1906, II, p. 1120.
- 23.
Nieuwe Rechtstaalphilosophie [A new philosophy of legal language], in Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn, 1912, p. 497.
- 24.
De Bussy: Schuldbelijdenis [Confession of Guilt] in W. 8032.
- 25.
Levy: Begripsdialectiek [Dialectics of Concepts] in W. 8026, and Verduidelijking [Clarification] in: W. 8034.
- 26.
Aletrino: Over ontoerekenbaarheid [On unaccountability], Twee opstellen over criminele anthropologie [Two essays on criminal anthropology] and Wat de criminele anthropologie ons leert [What criminal anthropology teaches us], in: De XXste eeuw, 1907.
- 27.
Heymans: Uitwassen der criminele anthropologie [Excesses of criminal anthropology] in: De Gids 1901, and Strafrechtelijke toerekening [Criminal law accountability] in Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [Journal for Penal/Criminal Law], Vol. XX, p. 470, see Mr. R. Kranenburg in W. 9259.
- 28.
Lady Victoria Welby: What is meaning? Ch. 5.
- 29.
Bréal: p. 99.
- 30.
Handboek der Nederlandsche Taal [Manual of the Dutch language] I, 127.
- 31.
Id. I, 86.
- 32.
Mr. Dr. A. A. H. Struycken: Het rechtsbegrip [The concept of law] p. 23–44.
- 33.
Mauthner, Vol. I, 56.
- 34.
Lady Victoria Welby, Significs and Language, Ch. II.
- 35.
Windelband: Ueber Norm und Normalität [On norm and Normality] in: Monatsschrift für Kriminalpsychologie, 1906, 10.
- 36.
Id.: Vergleichende Darstellung Part V, 20.
- 37.
Ch. Mercier: Criminal Responsibility and R. Wilson: Responsibility in Law in: The Law Magazine, 1906–1908.
- 38.
C.H. den Hertog: De Nederlandsche Taal, p. 169, 170.
- 39.
The Dutch expression “toerekenbaar”, most often understood as “toerekeningsvatbaar”, is colloquial and only in exceptions correct.
- 40.
See the relation between “aanspreken” [addressing] and “antwoorden” [answering]
- 41.
Lady Victoria Welby: What is Meaning? p. 44–46.
- 42.
D. Simons: Manual, §1.
- 43.
D. Simons: Brief Manual of Criminal Proceedings, on Artt. 2 & 141.
- 44.
Prof. Dr. G. Heymans: Uitwassen der crimineele anthropologie [Excesses of criminal anthropology] in: De Gids 1901, p. 73.
- 45.
Den Hertog, §68, §98.
- 46.
De Nederlandsche Taal, II, p. 119–120.
- 47.
Id. p. 103.
- 48.
No more than that: a moral judgment is aesthetic, contemplative, and desiring, imperative but not requital/revenge.
- 49.
Marcel Planiol: Etudes sur la responsabilité civile in: Revue Critique de legislation et de jurisprudence, 1905, p. 285.
- 50.
Aletrino: Verantwoordelijkheid, Straf, Vergelding en Veiligheidsmaatregel [Responsibility, Punishment, Revenge and Safety measure] in Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [Journal of Criminal Law] Vol. 20, p. 68.
- 51.
That is not entirely correct: criminal/penal responsibility is penal law!
- 52.
Mr. I. Henri Hymans: Het Recht der Werkelijkheid [The law of reality], p. 27.
- 53.
Lady Victoria Welby.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Haan, J.I. (2015). Legal Significs and Its Application in the Concepts ‘Liable’, ‘Responsible’ and ‘Accountable’. In: Broekman, J., Catá Backer, L. (eds) Signs In Law - A Source Book. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09837-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09837-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09836-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09837-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)