Cover not available
Part of
Legal Pragmatics
Edited by Dennis Kurzon and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288] 2018
► pp. 231–256

Chapter 11
On the balance between invariance and context-dependence

Legal concepts and their environments

| University of Turku
The central question asked in this chapter is how to reconcile the well-known conundrum of legal language being at the same time decontextualized yet influenced by context. This paradox is addressed here by reviewing the meaning of currently topical legal notions in environments where there are two or more valid jurisdictions – the national and the supranational or transnational – simultaneously present. Textualism and contextualism need not be conflicting paradigms in finding a solution between competing meanings. Rather, a balance could be struck through linguistic explanation. The paradox of competing interpretations is discussed here from the point of view of both law-givers and law-takers.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Legal pragmatics and legal pragmatism
  • 3. Context
  • 4. Invariance
  • 5. Disconcerting notions
    • 5.1Multilingual context I – supranational v national
      • 5.1.1Case 1 – catch as catch can
      • 5.1.2Case 2 – Family is best but what is a family?
    • 5.2Multilingual context II – Transnational
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • List of official documents
  • List of cases
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.11sal
References (78)
References
Auer, Peter, and Aldo Di Luzio (eds). 1992. The Contextualisation of Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Context and Contextualisation.” In Key Notions for Pragmatics, ed. by Jeff Verschueren, and Jan-Ola Östman, 86–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, George. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1993. Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1991. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1983. “Simplification v. Easification – The Case of Legal Texts”. Applied Linguistics Vol. 4, No. 1. 42–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connolly, John H. 2014. “The Contextual Component within a Dynamic Implementation of the FDG Model: Structure and Interaction.” Pragmatics 24:2. 229–248.Google Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm, Alice Johnson, and David Wright. 2016. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo and Jerzy Wróblewski. 1991. “The Rational Law-Maker and the Pragmatics of Legal Interpretation”. Journal of Pragmatics. Volume 15, No. 5, May 1991. 421–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endicott, Timothy A. O. 2015. “Legal Interpretation”. In Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law. ed. by A. Marmor, 109–123. London: Routledge. Available at: [URL]
Engberg, Jan. 2004. “Statutory Texts as Instances of Language(s): Consequences and Limitations on Interpretation.” Brooklyn Journal of International Law Vol. 29, No. 3. 1135–1166.Google Scholar
Foley, Richard. 2005. “Wealth of Terms – Scarcity of Justice? Term Formation in Statutory Definitions.” In Contemporary Issues of the Semiotics of Law. Cultural and Symbolic Analyses of Law in Global Context, ed. by Anne Wagner, Tracey Summerfield, Farid Benevides Vanegas. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Frawley, William, and Roberta Golinkoff. 1995. Linguistic Explanation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garre, Marianne. 1999. Human Rights in Translation. Legal Concepts in Different Languages. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Gibbons, John P. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Glennon, Michael J. 2010. The Fog of Law: Pragmatism, Security and International Law, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1972. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Alessandro Duranti. 1992. “Rethinking Context: An Introduction.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grey, Thomas C. 1989/2014. “Holmes and Legal Pragmatism.” Reprinted In Formalism and Pragmatism in American Law. Brill Online Books. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed June 30, 2016). DOI logo
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3. Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1992. “Contextualization Revisited.” In The Contextualisation of Language, ed. by Peter Auer, and Aldo Di Luzio, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hviid Jacobsen, Michael and Søren Kristiansen. 2015. The Social Thought of Erving Goffman. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. DOI logo
Johnson-Laird, Philip. 1983. Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Koenigswarter, Julia. 2013. “A Comparative Study of Categorization and Avoidance Phenomena of Semantic Universes in Matters of Abortion in France and Ireland.” Unpublished seminar paper, Introduction to Legal Linguistics Workshop, University of Turku, Faculty of Law, spring term 2013.
Kolehmainen, Antti. 2014. “Syntynyt tai siitetty – Keinohedelmöitetyn lapsen oikeudesta perintöön.” [Born or conceived – The inheritance rights of an artificially inseminated child] In Oikeustiede – Jurisprudentia XLVII:2014, 61–112. Helsinki: Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing.Google Scholar
Lacey, Nicola. 2004. A Life of H.L.A. Hart. The Nightmare and the Noble Dream. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lainé, Marie. 2013. “The Notion of Parents: A Concept of Family Law Subject to Societal Changes.” Unpublished seminar paper, Introduction to Legal Linguistics Workshop, University of Turku, Faculty of Law, spring term 2013.
Lakoff, Robin T. 1993. “Lewis Carroll: Subversive Pragmaticist.” A plenary address at the 4th International Pragmatics Association Conference, Kobe, Japan, July 25–30, 1993. Published In Pragmatics Vol. 3, No. 4. December 1993.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1975. Semantics. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lind, Craig, and Tom Hewitt. 2009. “Law and the Complexities of Parenting: Parental Status and Parental Function.” Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 31:4, 391–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1981. H.L.A. Hart: Jurist Profiles in Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miettinen, Timo. 2013. The Idea of Europe in Husserl’s Phenomenology: A Study in Generativity and Historicity. Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki. No. 36. Helsinki. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed June 30, 2016).
Morawetz, Thomas. 1990. “Epistemology of Judging: Wittgenstein and Deliberative Practices”, Faculty Articles and Papers, 203. 35–59. <[URL]> (Accessed September 25, 2017)
Noortmann, Math and Cedric Ryngaert (eds). 2013. Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law – From Law-takers to Law-makers. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1979. Developmental Pragmatics. Vancouver: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1935. Collected papers. Vol. 5. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1990. “What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?” Southern California Law Review Vol. 63. 1653–1670.Google Scholar
1995. Overcoming Law. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja. 2008. Language and the Functions of Law: A Legal Linguistic Study. Turku: Painosalama.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Interpersonality and Fundamental Rights.” In Interpersonality in Legal Genres, ed. by Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti, and Carmen Sancho Guinda, 63–86. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Matkaava filosofia” (Travelling philosophy; A review of J.L. Austin’s How to Do Things with Words translation into Finnish), Oikeus 1/2017. 148–157.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy Of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkälä, Toni. 2014. “But in this Twilight our Choices Seal our Fate: The Interplay of Autonomy and Dignity in Defining Interaction of Legal Response to the Beginning of Human Life.” In Oikeustiede – Jurisprudentia XLVII:2014, 253–333. Helsinki: Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing.Google Scholar
Siltala, Raimo. 2000. A Theory of Precedent. From Analytical Positivism to a Post-Analytical Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence. 2001. “Ordinary Meaning and Legal Interpretation.” In Proceedings from the Conference of Law and Language – Prospect and Retrospect, ed. by Tarja Salmi-Tolonen, Richard Foley, and Iris Tukiainen. CD-ROM, University of Lapland.Google Scholar
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on June 30, 2016).
Sullivan, Ruth. 2001. “Some Implications of Plain Language Drafting”, 22:3 Statute Law Review, 145–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. 1999. Legal Language, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. “A Message in a Bottle: Text, Autonomy, and Statutory Interpretation”. Tulane Law Review. Vol. 76: 431. Available at SSRN: <[URL]> (Accessed September 25, 2017)
Tolonen, Hannu. 1997. ”Mitä oikeus on?” (What is Law?) Oikeus 2/1997, 109–123.Google Scholar
Tuori, Kaarlo. 1997. Law, Power and Critique, In Tuori, Kaarlo, Zenon Bankowski, Jyrki Uusitalo (eds) Law and Power: Critical and Socio-Legal Essays. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications. 7–29.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
List of official documents
Code civil des français. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on 30 June, 2016).
The Constitution of Ireland. 1999. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on June 19, 2016).
Constitution Review Group. 1996. Report of the Constitution Review Group. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on June 19, 2016).
Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on June 19, 2016).
European Convention on Human Rights. 1950. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on June 23, 2016).
Execution Act 15.6.2007/705
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on June 23, 2016).
Regulation No 1/58 EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community. Available at: [URL]
Regulation No 802/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common definition of the concept of the origin of goods. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on June 19, 2016).
List of cases
Bestuur der Sociale Verzkeringsbank v J.H. van der Vecht (19–67 1996, ECR 345)Google Scholar
Case 100/84 Commission v the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed on June 19, 2016).
Cour de cassation, Assemblée plénière, Audience publique du vendredi 29 juin 2001, N° de pourvoi: 99–85973, Publié au bulletin Rejet. Available at: <[URL]> (Accessed June 19, 2016).
Defrenne v SA Belge de Navigation Aérienne (SABENA) (43/75 1976, ECR 455)Google Scholar
Evans v United Kingdom GC no. 6339/05§ ECHR 2007–3.Google Scholar
KKO 2001:100.Google Scholar
Régina v Pierre Boucherau C 30–77 1977, ECR 1999.Google Scholar
Roche v Roche and ors [2009] IESC 82 Supreme Court Record Number: 469/06 and 59/07.Google Scholar
VO v France GC no 53924/00 ECHR 2004–VIII.Google Scholar
Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24 <[URL]> comments at >[URL]> (Accessed September 25, 2017)