1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 4, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 4, 2018

The Interpretation of Legal Language

Abstract

In everyday interactions, we do our best to resolve linguistic vagueness, ambiguity, and other indeterminacies contextually. When these problems arise in the interpretation of authoritative legal texts, by contrast, it is not abundantly clear what context is relevant, or even legitimate. This article discusses approaches that legal analysts take in resolving linguistic indeterminacy. The most basic principle is reliance on the “ordinary meaning” of a term in dispute, on the assumption that this default interpretation is most likely to be within the intention of the drafters. However, there is no clear understanding of what “ordinary meaning” means or how to find it. Most recently, judges and legal scholars have turned to using linguistic corpora to assist in determining ordinary meaning in such cases. Other cases, focusing on the resolution of syntactic or semantic ambiguity, are less common. Courts in these cases sometimes resort to legally based “tiebreakers,” such as the rule of lenity, which requires courts to resolve ambiguity in favor of the accused in criminal cases.

Keyword(s): ambiguity, corpus, courts, statute, vagueness
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045649
2018-01-14
2024-07-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/4/1/annurev-linguistics-011817-045649.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045649&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adams v. Circuit City Stores 532 U.S. 105 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson JC. 2008. Just semantics: the lost readings of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yale Law J 117:992–1069 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson JC. 2014. Misreading like a lawyer: diagnosing the problem of cognitive bias in statutory interpretation. Harvard Law Rev 127:1521–92 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aristotle. 1893 (384 bce) Nicomachean Ethics transl. FH Peters London: Kegan Paul, 5th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  5. Armstrong SL, Gleitman LR, Gleitman H. 1983. What some concepts might not be. Cognition 13:263–308 [Google Scholar]
  6. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States 544 U.S. 696 2005.
  7. Barnhart v. Thomas 540 U.S. 20, 27–28 2003.
  8. Brafford v. United States 259 F. 511 (6th Cir 1919.
  9. Breyer S. 2005. Active Liberty: Interpreting our Democratic Constitution New York: Knopf [Google Scholar]
  10. Brudney J, Baum L. 2013. Oasis or mirage? The Supreme Court's thirst for dictionaries in the Rehnquist and Roberts eras. William Mary Law Rev 55:483–581 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chisom v. Roemer 501 U.S. 380 1991.
  12. Chomsky C. 2000. Unlocking the mysteries of “Holy Trinity”: spirit, letter, and history in statutory interpretation. Columbia Law Rev 100:901–56 [Google Scholar]
  13. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States 143 U.S. 457 1892.
  14. Dworkin R. 1986. Law's Empire Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Eskridge WN Jr.. 2016. Interpreting Law: A Primer on How to Read Statutes and the Constitution St. Paul, MN: Foundation [Google Scholar]
  16. Flores-Figueroa v. United States 556 U.S. 646 2009.
  17. Fodor J, Lepore E. 1996. The pet fish and the red herring: why concepts aren't prototypes. Cognition 58:243–76 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kamp H, Partee B. 1995. Prototype semantics and compositionality. Cognition 57:129–91 [Google Scholar]
  19. Katzmann RA. 2014. Judging Statutes New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Kimble J. 2015. The doctrine of the last antecedent, the example in Barnhart, why both are weak, and how textualism postures. Scribes J. Leg. Writ. 16:5–43 [Google Scholar]
  21. Liparota v. United States 471 U.S. 419 1985.
  22. Lockhart v. United States 577 U.S.— 2016.
  23. Mahowald K, Hartman J, Graff P, Gibson E. 2016. SNAP judgments: a small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language 92:619–35 [Google Scholar]
  24. Malt BC, Smith EE. 1982. The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Mem. Cogn. 10:69–75 [Google Scholar]
  25. McBoyle v. United States 283 U.S. 25 1931.
  26. Mouritsen S. 2010. The dictionary is not a fortress: definitional fallacies and a corpus-based approach to plain meaning. Brigham Young Univ. Law Rev 2010:1915–78 [Google Scholar]
  27. Muscarello v. United States 524 U.S. 125 1998.
  28. Osherson DN, Smith EE. 1981. On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 11:237–62 [Google Scholar]
  29. Poor Law Amendment Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 105, § 3 1851.
  30. Posner RA. 2012. The incoherence of Antonin Scalia. New Republic Aug. 24. https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism [Google Scholar]
  31. Ratzlaf v. United States 510 U.S. 135 1994.
  32. Rosch E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 104:192–233 [Google Scholar]
  33. Scalia A. 1998. A Matter of Interpretation Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Scalia A, Garner B. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West [Google Scholar]
  35. Schauer F. 2003. Profiles, Probabilities and Stereotypes Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Shapiro S. 2011. Legality Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Shaw v. United States 580 U.S. — 2016.
  38. Slocum BG. 2015. Ordinary Meaning: A Theory of the Most Fundamental Principle of Legal Interpretation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith v. United States 508 U.S. 223 1993. [Google Scholar]
  40. Solan LM. 1993. The Language of Judges Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Solan LM, Gales T. 2016. Finding ordinary meaning in law: the judge, the dictionary or the corpus?. Int. J. Leg. Discourse 1:253–76 [Google Scholar]
  42. Solan LM, Rosenblatt T, Osherson D. 2009. False consensus bias in contract interpretation. Columbia Law Rev 108:1268–300 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sprouse J, Almeida D. 2012. Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger's Core Syntax. J. Linguist. 48:609–52 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sprouse J, Schütze CT, Almeida D. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from linguistic inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134:219–48 [Google Scholar]
  45. State v. Rasabout 356 P.3d 1258 (Utah 2015. [Google Scholar]
  46. United States v. Tomsha-Miguel 766 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. Vermeule A. 2006. Judging Under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Wason PC, Shapiro D. 1971. Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 23:63–71 [Google Scholar]
  49. White City Shopping Center, LP v. PR Restaurants, LLC 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 565 2006. [Google Scholar]
  50. Whiteley v. Chappell L.R. 4 Q.B. 147 1868. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yates v. United States 574 U.S. — 2015. [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045649
Loading
The Interpretation of Legal Language
Annual Review of Linguistics 4, 337 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045649
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045649
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045649
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error