Abstract
Many standard pictures of pragmatics and legal jurisprudence reflect a common set of largely unquestioned assumptions. One recurring and central assumption is that of a separate and discretely identifiable linguistic system with concomitantly identifiable semantic meaning that then often needs “pragmatic enrichment” in order to be applied to context. In the legal realm this then raises the question of when is it acceptable to enrich semantic context in the context of rule application. This picture of rule and language application rests upon an analysis that takes as given the primacy of semantics to pragmatics. In this paper I will reverse this standard picture and construct an analysis of law and jurisprudence that begins from the assumption of the primacy of pragmatics in linguistic practice. Semantic meaning is seen from this stance as a hypothesis about behavioral meaning in linguistic practice and not as a to-be-applied starting point. Instead of starting from a presumed meaning, seeing pragmatics as primary rests identification of linguistic meaning, or the meaning of an institutional practice such as law, on a more central investigation of legal practices and habit, ostensibly linguistic or not. Using the work of George Herbert Mead, Charles Morris, Willard van Orman Quine and Donald Davidson, all theorists that emphasized behavior broader than that focused upon by more intellectualist theories of language, I will argue that greater attention to the primacy of pragmatics challenges standard theories of jurisprudence thereby forcing greater attention to traditionally ignored aspects of legal practice. This result, in turn, renders a more inclusive analysis necessary in order to construct a proper analysis of the pragmatics of legal practice.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Davidson, D. (1986). Truth, language and history: Philosophical essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. The Philosophical Review, 3, 357–370.
Kopytko, R. (1995). Against rationalist pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 475–491.
Llewellyn, K. N. (2011). The theory of rules. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marmor, A. (2008). The pragmatics of legal language. Ratio Juris, 21, 423–452.
Mead, G. H. (1964). Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Morris, C. (1946). Signs, language and behavior. New York: Prentice Hall.
Morris, C. (1955). Foundations of the theory of signs. In R. Carnap, C. Morris, & O. Neurath (Eds.), Foundations of the unity of science: Toward an international encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 77–137). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Morris, C. (1964). Signification and significance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Posner, R. A. (2013). Reflections on judging. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pressman, J. F. (1994). Sociocultural pragmatics origin in the late twentieth century: Countering historiographic neglect. Pragmatics, 4, 461–489.
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word & object. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Uebel, T. (2013). Pragmatics in Carnap and Morris and the bipartide metatheory conception. Erkenntnis, 78, 523–546.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Butler, B.E. (2016). Law and the Primacy of Pragmatics. In: Capone, A., Poggi, F. (eds) Pragmatics and Law. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30383-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30385-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)