Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 13:1 (2024) ► pp.131–162

When legal interpretation is not about language

The curious case of Lidia Poët

| University of Belgrade
| Bocconi University

Linguistic arguments are paramount in legal interpretation. They are widely used by judges and considered to be ubiquitous across jurisdictions. It is claimed that they are decisive and limitative in the judicial interpretation of the law. The claims have long been subject to theoretical scrutiny and, recently, testing within experimental jurisprudence. In this paper, we analyse the judicial reasoning in a landmark Italian case from the end of the nineteenth century concerning Lidia Poët, an aspiring practising female lawyer. The case was decided in the last instance by the Turin Court of Cassation. We give a detailed argumentative analysis of the reasoning of the Court of Cassation in Turin in the Lidia Poët case and show that the crucial linguistic and systematic arguments used are not grounds for the interpretative decision to exclude women from the denotation of the word “lawyer.” We conclude that the linguistic arguments employed by courts often do not do the argumentative work they are expected to do. Instead, they cover the substantial views that have determined the ascription of normative meaning to a term or sentence.

Keywords: interpretative arguments, legal interpretation, legal practice, Lidia Poët, ordinary meaning, women rights
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Women, courts, and law in Italy
    • 2.1Lidia Poët: The first woman admitted to the Italian bar
    • 2.2The exclusion of women from the practice of law: The Italian debate
  • 3.Interpretative argumentation of the Turin Court of Cassation
    • 3.1Opponents of women exercising law
    • 3.2Proponents of women exercising law
    • 3.3The reasoning of TCC
  • 4.Theoretical implications of the judicial reasoning in the Lidia Poet case
    • 4.1A normative reconstruction of the interpretative dispute
    • 4.2Some conceptual implications of the dispute
  • 5.Stepping outside of language
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Literature
Published online: 17 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00025.isi
References (63)

Literature

Alpa, Guido
2010 L’ingresso delle Donne nella Professione Legali. Rassegna Forense 21: 223–244.Google Scholar
Altavilla, Enrico
1955 Psicologia Giudiziaria, II Gli Attori del Procedimento Penale. Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, IV edizione.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Maria
2017 “Reasons for Action: Justification, Motivation, Explanation.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Edward N. Zalta.Google Scholar
Baude, William & Doerfler, Ryan D.
2017 “The (Not So) Plain Meaning Rule.” The University of Chicago Law Review 84(2):539–566.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Antonio
1886 Sull’esercizio delle professioni di avvocato e di procuratore. Testo e commento della legge 8/06 1874 n. 1938, Serie 2, e del regolamento 26 luglio 1874, n. 2012 con appendice sugli onorari per l’avvocatura. Torino: Unione Tipografico Editrice.Google Scholar
Borg, Emma
2012 “Semantics without pragmatics?” The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canale, Damiano & Tuzet, Giovanni
2007 “On Legal Inferentialism. Toward a Pragmatics of Semantic Content in Legal Interpretation?” Ratio Juris 20(1):32–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “The A Simili Argument: An Inferentialist Setting.” Ratio Juris 22(4):499–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “What is the Reason for This Rule? An Inferential Account of the Ratio Legis.” Argumentation 24(2):197–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “What Is Legal Reasoning About: A Jurisprudential Account.” Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. by Fabrizio Esposito and Péter Cserne, 9–24. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 La giustificazione della decisione giudiziale. G. Giappichelli Editore.Google Scholar
2023 “Legislative Intentions and Counterfactuals: Or, What One Can Still Learn from Dworkin’s Critique of Legal Positivism.” Ratio Juris 36(1):26–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiassoni, Pierluigi
2019 Interpretation without Truth. Berlin: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Mathilde
2015 “When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach.” Washington and Lee Law Review 721:483–571.Google Scholar
Comanducci, Paolo
2021 ““Facciamo a capirci”: Conversazione ordinaria e interpretazione giuridica.” Lo stato: Rivista semestrale di scienza costituzionale, diritto dell’economia e teoria del diritto 9(16):429–440.Google Scholar
Danziger, Shai, Levav, Jonathan & Avnaim-Pesso, Liora
2011 “Extraneous factors in judicial decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(17):6889–6892. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald
1986 Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Erlanger, Howard, Garth, Bryant, Larson, Jane, Mertz, Elizabeth, Nourse, Victoria, Wilkins, David
2005 “Is It Time for a New Legal Realism?” Wisconsin Law Review 2005:335–363.Google Scholar
Eskridge Jr., William N.
1989 “The New Textualism”. UCLA Law Review 371 621–691.Google Scholar
Gabba, Carlo Francesco
1884 Le donne non avvocate. Pisa: Tipografia Nistri & C.Google Scholar
Grove, Tara Leigh
2023 “The Misunderstood History Of Textualism.” Northwestern University Law Review 117(4):1–65.Google Scholar
Hannikainen, IR, Tobia, KP, de Almeida, GDFCF, Struchiner, N, Kneer, M, Bystranowski, P, Dranseika, V, Strohmaier, N, Bensinger, S, Dolinina, K, Janik, B, Lauraitytė, E, Laakasuo, M, Liefgreen, A, Neiders, I, Próchnicki, M, Rosas, A, Sundvall, J & Żuradzki, T.
2022 “Coordination and expertise foster legal textualism.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(44):1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iannuzzi, Ilaria and Pasquale Tammaro
2022 Lidia Poët. La Prima Avvocata, Milan: Le Lucerne.Google Scholar
Krishnakumar, Anita S.
2010 “Statutory Interpretation in the Roberts Court’s First Era: An Empirical and Doctrinal Analysis.” Hastings Law Journal 621:221–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leiter, Brian
1995 “Legal Indeterminacy.” Legal Theory 1(4):481–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Legal Formalism and Legal Realism: What is the Issue?” Legal Theory 16(2):111–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacCormick, D. Neil & Robert S. Summers
1991 Interpreting Statutes. Routledge.Google Scholar
Marghieri
, Le donne avvocate, Napoli 1884.Google Scholar
Matczak, Marcin
2017 “Three Kinds of Intention in Lawmaking.” Law and Philosophy 36(6):651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miles, Thomas J. & Sunstein, Cass R.
2008 “The New Legal Realism.” The University of Chicago Law Review 751:831–851Google Scholar
Nourse, Victoria F.
2012 “A Decision Theory of Statutory Interpretation.” The Yale Law Journal 701:70–152.Google Scholar
Nourse, Victoria F. & Shaffer, Gregory
2016 “Varieties of New Legal Realism: Can a New World Order Prompt a New Legal Theory.” Cornell Law Review 951:61–138.Google Scholar
Poët, Lidia
1883 Ricorso all’Eccellentissima Corte d’Appello in data 14.11.1883, Turin: Stamperia dell’Unione Tipografico-EditriceGoogle Scholar
Poggi, Francesca
2013 “The Myth of Literal Meaning in Legal Interpretation.” Analisi e diritto 3131–335.Google Scholar
Ranelletti Eutimio
1957 La Donna giudice, ovverosia la “grazia” contro la “giustizia.” Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Recanati, Francois
2004 Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ricci, Cristina
2022 Lidia Poët. Vita e battaglie della prima avvocata italiana, pionieria dell’emancipazione femminile, Turin: Graphot.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica
2013 “Claims of Legal Authorities and “Expressions of Intention”: The Limits of Philosophy of Language.” Law and Language, ed. by Michael Freeman & Fiona Smith, 79–99. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabatini, Alma
1987 “Raccomandazioni per un uso non sessista della lingua Italiana.” Il Sessismo nella Lingua Italiana. ed. by Alma Sabatini, 95–122. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri e Commissione Nazionale per la Parità e le Pari Opportunità tra uomo e donna.Google Scholar
Sandro, Paolo
2022 The Making of Constitutional Democracy. Bloomsbury Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Antonin & Garner, Brian A.
2012 Reading Law. Thompson/West.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick
1990 “Statutory Construction and the Coordinating Function of Plain Meaning.” The Supreme Court Review 1990:231–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015a “Is Law a Technical Language?” San Diego Law Review 521:501–513.Google Scholar
2015b “On the Relationship Between Legal and Ordinary Language.” Speaking of Language and Law: Conversations on the Work of Peter Tiersma, ed. by Lawrence Solan, Ainsworth, Janet & Roger W. Shuy, 35–38. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skoczeń, Izabela
2015 “Minimal Semantics and Legal Interpretation.” International Journal of Semiotics and Law 29(3):615–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slocum, Brian G.
2015 “The Ordinary Meaning of Rules.” Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following. ed. by Michał Araszkiewicz, Paweł Banas, Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki & Krzysztof Płeszka. 295–317. Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Ordinary Meaning. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Slocum, Brian G. & Wong Jarrod
2021 “The Vienna Convention and Ordinary Meaning in International Law.” Yale Journal of International Law 461:191–239.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B.
2014 “Communicative Content and Legal Content.” Notre Dame Law Review 891:479–520.Google Scholar
Sommers, Roseanna
2021 “Experimental jurisprudence.” Science 3731:394–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spaić, Bojan
2017 “Institutional Control of Interpretation.” Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. ed. by Mortimer Sellers & Stephan Kirste. 1–6. Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Normativity of Basic Rules of Legal Interpretation.” Unpacking Normativity. ed. by Kenneth Einar Himma, Miodrag Jovanović & Bojan Spaić. 157–175. Hart Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2023 “Formalism.” In: Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. ed. by Mortimer Sellers & Stephan Kirste. 1–8. Springer.Google Scholar
Szabo, Zoltan Gendler
2005 Semantics Versus Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thumma, Samuel A. & Kischmeier, Jeffrey L.
1999 “The Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries.” Buffalo Law Review 471:228–561.Google Scholar
Tobia, Kevin P.
2020 “Testing Ordinary Meaning.” Harvard Law Review 1341:728–806.Google Scholar
2022 “Experimental Jurisprudence.” The University of Chicago Law Review 891:735–802.Google Scholar
Tobia, Kevin, Brian G. Slocum, and Victoria Nourse
2023 “Ordinary Meaning and Ordinary People.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1711 365–458.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E.
2003 The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viale, Chiara
2022 Lidia e le altre, Pari opportunità ieri e oggi: l’eredità di Lidia Poët. Milan: Guerini Next.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Macagno, Fabrizio & Sartor, Giovanni
2021 Statutory Interpretation. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weisser, Martin
2016 Practical Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction to Corpus-Based Language Analysis. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zoldan, Evan C.
2019 “Corpus Linguistics and the Dream of Objectivity.” Seton Hall Law Review 50 (2):401–448.Google Scholar