Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T01:00:37.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Interpretation and Pragmatics – Legal Ambiguity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

Douglas Walton ,
Fabrizio Macagno  and
Giovanni Sartor
Douglas Walton
Affiliation:
University of Windsor, Ontario
Fabrizio Macagno
Affiliation:
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Giovanni Sartor
Affiliation:
Università di Bologna
Get access

Summary

This definition is only apparently clear and simple. In fact, in order to understand what it means exactly, it is necessary to analyze first the concept of [§1.1] interpretation and then the related concepts of [§1.2] ambiguity, [§1.3] ordinary meaning, and [§1.4] vagueness.

Type
Chapter
Information
Statutory Interpretation
Pragmatics and Argumentation
 , pp. 97 - 156
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Alexy, Robert, and Ralf Dreier. 1991. “Statutory interpretation in the Federal Republic of Germany.” In Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study, edited by MacCormick, Neil and Summers, Robert, 73–121. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Asgeirsson, Hrafn. 2012. “Textualism, pragmatic enrichment, and objective communicative content.” Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper, no. 2012/21. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2142266.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 1989. Philosophy without Ambiguity: A Logico-Linguistic Essay. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 2005. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David, and Levinson, Stephen. 1981. “It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version).” In Radical Pragmatics, edited by Cole, Peter, 1–62. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2000. “Quantification, qualification and context a reply to Stanley and Szabó.” Mind and Language 15 (2 and 3): 262–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00131.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy. 2011. “Interpretation and construction.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34: 65–72.Google Scholar
Baude, William, and Doerfler, Ryan. 2017. “The (not so) plain meaning rule.” University of Chicago Law Review 84(2): 539–566.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Prakken, Henry. 2010. “Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2): 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9094-8.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 1997. “Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction.” Mind 106(423): 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/106.423.375.Google Scholar
Black, Henry Campbell. 1896. Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bosanac, Paul. 2009. Litigation Logic: A Practical Guide to Effective Argument. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Capone, Alessandro. 2009. “Are explicatures cancellable? Toward a theory of the speaker’s intentionality.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6(1): 55–83. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.003.Google Scholar
Capone, Alessandro. 2011. “The attributive/referential distinction, pragmatics, modularity of mind and modularization.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 31(2): 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2011.560827.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2004. “Explicature and semantics.” In Semantics: A Reader, edited by Davis, Steven and Gillon, Brendan, 817–845. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2013. “Legal texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory.” In Law and Language: Current Legal Issues, edited by Freeman, Michael and Smith, Fiona, 15:8–33. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2009. A Concise Introduction to Syntactic Theory: The Government-Binding Approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo, and Jerzy, Wróblewski. 1988. “Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law.” Law and Philosophy 7(2): 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144156.Google Scholar
Endicott, Timothy. 2000. Vagueness in Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, Ward, Guzior, Dustin, and Malani, Anup. 2010. “Ambiguity about ambiguity: An empirical inquiry into legal interpretation.” Journal of Legal Analysis 2(1): 257–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/2.1.257Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 1992. “When is metaphor? The idea of understanding in theories of metaphor.” Poetics Today 13(4): 575–606. https://doi.org/10.2307/1773290.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guastini, Riccardo. 2011. Interpretare e Argomentare. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Gullvåg, Ingemund, and Naess, Arne. 1996. “Vagueness and ambiguity.” In Philosophy of Language. Vol. 2, edited by Dascal, Marcelo, Dietfried, Gerhardus, Lorenz, Kuno, and Meggle, Georg, 1407–1417. Berlin, Germany, and New York, NY: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1965. “The inference to the best explanation.” The Philosophical Review 74(1): 88–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183532.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1992. “Inference to the best explanation (review).” Mind 101(403): 578–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/101.403.578.Google Scholar
Hart, Herbert Adolphus, Lionel. 1958. “Positivism and the separation of law and morals.” Harvard Law Review 71(4): 593–629.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Narrog, Heiko, and Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2015. “Default semantics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, edited by Barber, Alex and Stainton, Robert, 193–221. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1984. “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature.” In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, edited by Schiffring, Deborah, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1991. “Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t.” Journal of Pragmatics 15(4): 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90034-U.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1995. “Vehicles of meaning: Unconventional semantics and unbearable interpretation.” Washington University Law Quarterly 73: 1145–1152.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 1999. Discourse, Beliefs and Intentions. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2005a. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2005b. “Default semantics.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics, edited by Barber, Alex and Stainton, Robert, 128–130. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2006. “Meaning merger: Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality.” Intercultural Pragmatics 3(2): 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2007. “The syntax-pragmatics merger: Belief reports in the theory of default semantics.” Pragmatics & Cognition 15(1): 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.06jas.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2011. “Salient meanings, default meanings, and automatic processing.” In Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing, edited by Jaszczolt, Kasia and Allan, Keith, 11–33. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Jeffrey, and Green, Georgia. 1995. “Grammar and inferences of rationality in interpreting the child pornography statute.” Washington University Law Review 73: 1223–1251.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2012. “Sentences, utterances, and speech acts.” In Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia, 169–190. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Dan, and Manning, Christopher. 2003. “Accurate unlexicalized parsing.” In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics-Volume 1, 423–430. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. “What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3): 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353453.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. “The notional category of modality.” In Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, edited by Portner, Paul and Partee, Barbara, 289–323. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D Terence, McDaniel, Dana, and Langsam, Yedidyah. 1989. “Preposition-phrase attachment in noun phrases.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(6): 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067157Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2017. “Defaults and inferences in interpretation.” Journal of Pragmatics 117: 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.005.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Bigi, Sarah. 2018. “Types of dialogue and pragmatic ambiguity.” In Argumentation and Language, edited by Oswald, Steve, Jacquin, Jérôme, and Herman, Thierry, 191–218. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Capone, Alessandro. 2016. “Interpretative disputes, explicatures, and argumentative reasoning.” Argumentation 30(4): 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9347-5.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2011. “Reasoning from paradigms and negative evidence.” Pragmatics & Cognition 19(1): 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19.1.04mac.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2014. Emotive Language in Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2017. Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2018. “Practical reasoning arguments: A modular approach.” Argumentation 32(4): 519–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9450-5.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1995. “Argumentation and interpretation in law.” Argumentation 9(3): 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733152.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2014. The Language of Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Michael S. 1980. “The semantics of judging.” Southern California Law Review 54: 151–294.Google Scholar
Morra, Lucia. 2016. “Conversational implicatures in normative texts.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, edited by Capone, Alessandro and Mey, Jacob, 537–562. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Naess, Arne. 2005a. “Basic terms.” In The Selected Works of Arne Naess, edited by Drengson, Alan, 5–82. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Naess, Arne. 2005b. “Definitoid statements.” In The Selected Works of Arne Naess, edited by Drengson, Alan, 161–208. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Naess, Arne. 2005c. “Precization and definition.” In The Selected Works of Arne Naess, edited by Drengson, Alan, 1403–1433. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1979. “The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy.” Linguistics and Philosophy 3(2): 143–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126509.Google Scholar
Pantel, Patrick, and Lin, Dekang. 2000. “An unsupervised approach to prepositional phrase attachment using contextually similar words.” In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 101–108. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Patterson, Dennis. 1993. “Poverty of interpretative universalism: Toward the reconstruction of legal theory.” Texas Law Review 72: 1–56.Google Scholar
Patterson, Dennis. 2005. “Interpretation in law.” San Diego Law Review 42: 685–710.Google Scholar
Poggi, Francesca. 2011. “Law and conversational implicatures.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 24(1): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9201-xGoogle Scholar
Poggi, Francesca. 2016. “Grice, the law and the linguistic special case thesis.” In Pragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Capone, Alessandro and Poggi, Francesca, 231–248. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 1987. Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2002. “Unarticulated constituents.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25(3): 299–345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015267930510.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2012. “Pragmatic enrichment.” In Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, edited by Russell, Gillian and Fara, Delia Graff, 67–78. New York, NY, and London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rocci, Andrea. 2008. “Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of argumentation.” Argumentation 22(2): 165–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9065-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1978. “On testing for conversational implicature.” In Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics, edited by Cole, Peter, 281–297. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin, and Garner, Bryan. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 2016. “Philosophical and jurisprudential issues of vagueness.” In Vagueness and Law: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives, edited by Keil, Geert and Poscher, Ralf, 23–48. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slocum, Brian. 2016a. “Conversational implicatures and legal texts.” Ratio Juris 29(1): 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12114.Google Scholar
Slocum, Brian. 2016b. Ordinary Meaning: A Theory of the Most Fundamental Principle of Legal Interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Slocum, Brian. 2017. “The contribution of linguistics to legal interpretation.” In The Nature of Legal Interpretation: What Jurists Can Learn about Legal Interpretation from Linguistics and Philosophy, edited by Slocum, Brian, 14–45. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2009. “Interpreting legal texts: What is, and what is not, special about the law.” In Philosophical Essays, 1: 403–424. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence. 2004. “Pernicious ambiguity in contracts and statutes.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 79: 859–888.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence. 2010. The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence. 1987. “On the indeterminacy crisis: Critiquing critical dogma.” The University of Chicago Law Review 54: 462–503.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence. 2009. “District of Columbia v. Heller and originalism.” Northwestern University Law Review 103(2): 923–982.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence. 2013. “Originalism and constitutional construction.” Fordham Law Review Rev. 82(2): 453–537.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence. 2015. “Intellectual history as constitutional theory.” Virginia Law Review, 1111–1164.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence. 2017. “Originalism, hermeneutics, and the fixation thesis.” In The Nature of Legal Interpretation: What Jurists Can Learn about Legal Interpretation from Linguistics and Philosophy, edited by Slocum, Brian, 130–155. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Strauss, David. 1996. “Why plain meaning.” Notre Dame Law Review 72(5): 1565–1582.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory Thomas. 2012. The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
Swanson, James, and Pilon, Roger, eds. 2002. Cato Supreme Court Review. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
Tarello, Giovanni. 1980. L’interpretazione della Legge. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. 1995. “The ambiguity of interpretation: Distinguishing interpretation from construction” Washington University Law Review 73(3): 1095–1101.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. 2001. “A message in a bottle: Text, autonomy, and statutory interpretation.” Tulane Law Review 76: 431–482.Google Scholar
Volokh, Eugene. 1998. “The commonplace Second Amendment.” New York University Law Review 73: 793–821.Google Scholar
Waismann, Friedrich. 1951. “Verifiability.” In Logic and Language, edited by Ryle, Gilbert and Flew, Antony, 35–68. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Reed, Christopher, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weinstock, Charles B., Goodenough, John B., and Klein, Ari Z.. 2013. “Measuring assurance case confidence using Baconian probabilities.” In 2013 1st International Workshop on Assurance Cases for Software-Intensive Systems (ASSURE), 7–11. San Francisco, CA: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASSURE.2013.6614264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, David C. 1998. “The unitary Second Amendment.” New York University Law Review 73: 822–830.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2002. Vagueness. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Sperber, Dan. 2004. “Relevance theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Horn, Laurence and Ward, Gregory, 607–632. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wyner, Adam, and Bench-Capon., Trevor 2007. “Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning.” In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference, edited by Lodder, Arno and Mommers, Laurens, 139–149. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Cases cited

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States 1892 143 U.S. 457.

Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker 2002 535 U.S. 125.

District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 554 U.S. 570.

Moskal v. United States 1990 No. 498 U.S. 103.

Muscarello v. United States 1998 no. 524 U.S. 125.

Smith v. United States 1993 508 U.S. 223.

United States v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. 1929. 278 U.S. 269.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×