Conversational Implicatures and Legal Interpretation. On the Difference between Conversational Maxims and Legal Interpretative Criteria

• Francesca Poggi ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Milan

     University of Milan

     Milán, Italia

     
• Localización: Analisi e diritto = Análisis y derecho = Law and analysis = Droit et analyse = Análise e direito, ISSN 1126-5779, ISSN-e 2785-7220, Vol. 18, Nº. 2 (Publicado: 15-02-2019), 2018, págs. 39-66
• Idioma: varios idiomas
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Currently, there is an ongoing debate which involves legal scholars, as well as philosophers of language and pragmatists, about the applicability of Grice’s theory of conversational implicatures to legal statutes, i.e. about the possibility of interpreting legal statutes according to Grice’s conversational maxims (or maxims that are similar to Grice’s ones). The aim of this paper is twofold: first, to provide a clear reconstruction of the debate at stake; second, to advance an argument within that debate. After a brief presentation of Grice’s theory (§2), I will examine the arguments that have been advanced in favour of and against the possibility of interpreting legal statutes according to Grice’s model (§3), and then I will argue that the dispute should be engaged on a factual level. My thesis is that even if some legal interpretative criteria have a content similar to that of conversational maxims, their functioning is totally different, because they are not based on the existence of a mutual general expectation.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Atlas, J.D. (2005). Logic, meaning and conversation, Oxford, OUP.
  • Atlas, J.D., Levinson, S.C. (1981). It-Clefts, Informativeness, and Logical Form: Radical Pragmatics, in Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics,...
  • Bach, K. (1994). Conversational Implicature, «Mind & Language», 9, 124-162.
  • Bach, K. (1997). The semantic-pragmatic distinction: What it is and why it matters, «Pragmatik», 8, 33-50.
  • Bach, K. (2005). The Top 10 Misconceptions about Implicature, in Birner, B., Ward, G. (eds.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-gricean...
  • Bianchi, C. (2011). Implicature, intenzioni e normatività, «Esercizi filosofici», 6, 16- 29.
  • Bianchi, C. (2016). What Did You (Legally) Say? Cooperative and Strategic Interactions, in Capone, A., Poggi, F. (eds.), Pragmatics and Law....
  • Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. An introduction to pragmatics, Oxford, Blackwell.
  • Blome-Tillmann, M. (2008). Conversational implicature and the cancellability test, «Analysis», 68, 156-160.
  • Bobbio, N. (1961). Il positivismo giuridico, Torino, Giappichelli.
  • Borge, S. (2009). Conversational Implicatures and Cancellability, «Acta Analytica», 24, 149-154.
  • Capone, A. (2013). The role of pragmatics in (re)constructing the rational law-maker, «Pragmatics & Cognition», 21, 399-414.
  • Carston, R. (1993). Conjunction, explanation, and relevance, «Lingua», 90, 27-48.
  • Carston, R. (1995). Quantity maxims and generalised implicature, «Lingua», 96, 213- 244.
  • Carston, R. (2013). Legal Texts and Canons of Construction: A View from Current Pragmatic Theory, in Freeman, M., Smith, F. (eds.), Law and...
  • Chiassoni, P., (1999). Interpretative Games: Statutory Construction Through Gricean Eyes, «Analisi e diritto 1999», 79-99.
  • Dascal, M., Wróblewski, J. (1991). The rational law-maker and the pragmatics of legal interpretation, «Journal of Pragmatics», 15, 421-444.
  • Davis, W.A. (1998). Implicature, Intention, Convention and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Degen, J. (2007). Processing Scalar Implicatures: What Role Does the Question of Default Play for the Debate Between (Neo-)Griceanism and...
  • Ekins, R. (2012). The Nature of Legislative Intent, Oxford, OUP.
  • Elgin, C. (2002). Take it from me: the Epistemological status of Testimony, «Philosophy and Phenomenological Research», 65, 291-308.
  • Gizbert-Studnicki, T. (2015). The Normativity of Rules of Interpretation, in M. Araszkiewicz, M., Banás, P., Gizbert-Studnicki, T., Pleszka,...
  • Green, M.S. (2002). Review of Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory, by Wayne Davis, «Philosophy...
  • Green, M.S. (2007). Self-Expression, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
  • Grice, P.H. (1989). Studies in the Way of Word, Cambridge – London, Harvard University Press.
  • Horn, L.R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inferences: Q-based and R-based implicature, in SchiErin, D. (ed.), Georgetown University...
  • Ladegaard, H.J. (2009). Pragmatic cooperation revisited: Resistance and non-cooperation as a discursive strategy in asymmetrical discourse,...
  • LakoE, R.T. (1973), The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding your P’s and Q’s, in Aa.Vv., Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago...
  • Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S.C. (2000). Presumptive Meaning, Cambridge – London, MIT Press. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University...
  • Lumsden, D. (2008). Einds of Conversational Cooperation, «Journal of Pragmatics», 40, 1896-908.
  • Macagno, F., Walton, D., Sartor, G. (2018). Pragmatic Maxims and Presuppositions in Legal Interpretation, «Law and Philosophy», 37, 69-115.
  • Marmor, A. (2005). Interpretation and Legal Theory, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2nd ed.
  • Marmor, A. (2007). What Does the Law Say? Semantics and Pragmatics in Statutory Language, «Analisi e diritto 2007», 127-140.
  • Marmor, A. (2008). The Pragmatics of Legal Language, «Ratio Juris», 21, 423-452.
  • Marmor, A. (2011). Can Law Imply more than It Says? On Some Pragmatic Aspects of Strategic Speech, in Marmor, A., Soames, S. (eds.), Philosophical...
  • Miller, G.P. (1990). Pragmatics and maxims of interpretation, «Wisconsin Law Review», 1179, 1179-1227.
  • Morra, L. (2011). Implicature conversazionali nei testi di legge, «Esercizi filosofici», 6, 214-231.
  • Morra L. (2015). Conversational Implicatures in Normative Texts, in Capone, A., Mey, J.L. (eds.), Pragmatics, culture and society, Dordrecht,...
  • Morra, L. (2016). Widening the Gricean Picture to Strategic Exchanges, in Capone, A.,
  • Poggi, F. (eds.), Pragmatics and Law. Philosophical Perspectives, Dordrecht, Springer, 201-229.
  • Poggi, F. (2011). Law and Conversational Implicatures, «International Journal for Semiotics of Law», 24, 21-40.
  • Poggi, F. (2013). The Myth of Literal Meaning in Legal Interpretation, «Analisi e diritto 2013», 313-335.
  • Poggi, F. (2016). Grice, the Law, and the Linguistic Special Case Thesis, in Capone, A., Poggi, F. (eds.), Pragmatics and Law. Philosophical...
  • Reimer, M. (1998). What is Meant by ‘What is said’. A Reply to Cappelen and Lepore, «Mind & Language», 13, 598-604.
  • Rysiew, P. (2007). Beyond words: Communication, truthfulness, and understanding, «Episteme», 4, 285-304.
  • Sadock, J.M. (1978). On Testing for Conversational Implicature, in Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, New York, Academic...
  • Sarangi, S.K Slembrouck. S. (1992). Non-cooperation in Communication: A Reassessment of Gricean Pragmatics, «Journal of Pragmatics», 17, 117-154.
  • Saul, J. (2002a). Speaker Meaning, What is said, and What is Implicated, «Nous», 36, 228-248.
  • Saul, J. (2002b). What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticism, «Linguistics and Philosophy»,...
  • Sbisà, M. (2007). Detto, non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita, Roma-Bari, Laterza.
  • Sbisà, M. (2017). Implicitness in Normative Texts, in Poggi, F., Capone, A. (eds.), Pragmatics and Law. Practical and Theoretical Perspectives,...
  • Searle, J.R. (1978). Literal Meaning, «Erkenntnis», 13, 207-224.
  • Searle, J.R. (1980). The Background of Meaning, in Bierwisch, M., Kiefer, F., Searle, J.R. (eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, Dordrecht-Boston-London,...
  • Shaer, B. Toward a cognitive science of legal interpretation, in Freeman, M., Smith, F. (eds.), Law and language: current legal issues, 15,...
  • Sinclair, M.B.W. (1985). Law and Language: the Role of Pragmatics in Statutory Interpretation, «University of Pittsburgh Law Review», 46,...
  • Skoczén, I. (2015). Implicatures Within the Legal Context: A Rule-Based Analysis of the Possible Content of Conversational Maxims in Law,...
  • Skoczén, I. (forth.). Implicatures within legal language, Dordrecht, Springer, forthcoming.
  • Slocum, B.G. (2016). Conversational Implicatures and Legal Texts, «Ratio Juris», 29, 23-43.
  • Smolka, J., Pirker, B. (2016). International law and pragmatics, «International Journal of Language and Law», 5, 1-40.
  • Sperber, D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding, in Khalfa, J. (ed.), What is intelligence?, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,...
  • Strawson, P.F. (1973). Austin and “locutionary meaning”, in Berlin, I., Forguson, L.W., Pears, D.F., Pitcher, G., Searle, J.R., Strawson,...
  • Thomas, J. (1998). Cooperative principle, in Mey, J. (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 176-179.
  • Velluzzi, V. (2007). Whose Intentions and Authority? The Legislature’s or the Interpreter’s?, «Analisi e diritto 2007», 279-283.
  • von Wright, G.H. (1963). Norm and action. A logical enquiry, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Weirner, M. (2006). Are All Conversational Implicatures Cancellable?, «Analysis», 66, 127-30.
  • Wilson, D., Sperber, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.
  • Wilson, D., Sperber, D. (1995). Relevance Theory, in Ward, G., Horn, L. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford, Blackwell, 607-632.