Cover not available
Part of
Legal Pragmatics
Edited by Dennis Kurzon and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288] 2018
► pp. 257–276

Chapter 12
Contextuality of interpretation in non-monolingual jurisdictions

The Canadian experience

| New Bulgarian University
Within the context of legal systems Canada manifests unique features originating in the co-existence of the two different legal systems of common law and civil law, worded respectively in English and French. Some converging and diverging elements of this idiosyncratic bijural and bilingual legal regime are examined and terminological issues arising in the process of harmonizing federal legislation with the Code Civil du Québec are discussed. The focus is on the procedure adopted in cases of conceptual and terminological non-correspondence, the drafting techniques employed, and the justification for choice in each particular instance contingent on the context, with the ultimate aim of providing optimal solutions regarding current pressing difficulties in the harmonization of legal terms in the supranational and multilingual system of the European Union.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. The language of law
  • 3. Approaches to statutory interpretation
  • 4.The Canadian legislative context
  • 5.Implications for multilingual legal systems
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.288.12yan
References (46)
References
Belvedere, Andrea. 1997. “Some Observations on the Language of the Italian Civil Code.“ In Law and Language. The Italian Analytical School, ed. by Anna Pintore and Mario Jori, 175–209. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. 2010. “Interdiscursivity in Professional Communication.” Discourse and Communication 21 (1): 32–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabré Castellví, María Teresa. 1999. Terminology. Theory, Methods, Applications. Translated by Janet Ann DeCesaris. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000a. “Elements for a Theory of Terminology: Towards an Alternative Paradigm”. Terminology 6/1: 35–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2013. “Legal Texts and Canons of Construction: A View from Current Pragmatic Theory“. In Current Legal Issues: Law and Language, ed. by Michael Freeman and Fiona Smith, 8–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caton, Charles. 1963. Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Cross, Rupert. 1995. Statutory Interpretation (3rd ed.), London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Driedger, Elmer. 1974. The Construction of Statutes. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela. 2009. “The Pragmatics of Specialized Communication“. Entreculturas (1): 61–84.Google Scholar
Fleming, Andrew 1997. “Canadian Common and Civil Law: a Study in Convergence.” International Business Lawyer 25: 13.Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves. 1993. “Présupposés de la terminologie: vers une remise en cause”. TEXTconTEXT 8/3–4: 155–176.Google Scholar
Gémar, Jean-Claude. 1995. “Traduire ou l’art d’interpréter, langue, droit et société: éléments de jurilinguistique.” Tome 2: Application. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Glanert, Simone. 2008. “Speaking Language to Law: The Case of Europe.” Legal Studies, 28 (2): 161–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Herbert L. A. 1958. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals”. Harvard Law Review 71: 593–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Herbert, L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hinds, John. 1987. “Reader versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology.“ In Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, ed. by Ulla Connor and Robert B. Kaplan, 141–152. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lazzaro, Giorgio. 1997. “Law and Ordinary Language“. In Law and Language. The Italian Analytical School, ed. by Anna Pintore and Mario Jori, 175–209. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Roderick A. 1997. “Legal Bilingualism“. McGill Law Journal 42: 119–167.Google Scholar
Maltz, Earl. 1994. Rethinking Constitutional Law: Originalism, Intervenitonism, and the Politics of Judicial Review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Manning, John 2006. “What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?“ 106 Columbia Law Review 1:70–111.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2008. “The Pragmatics of Legal Language“. Ratio Juris 21(4): 423–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Textualism in Context. [URL] (accessed Oct 24, 2017).
Mattila, Heikki E. S. 2013. Comparative Legal Linguistics. 2nd. Ed. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
McArdle, Wayne and Mark Paterson. 1998. “Canada”. International Business Lawyer 26: 401–405.Google Scholar
McAuliffe, Karen. 2011. “Hybrid Texts and Uniform Law? The Multilingual Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24 (1): 97–115. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Molot, Jonathan. 2006. “The Rise and Fall of Textualism.“ 106 Columbia Law Review 1:1–69.Google Scholar
Morel, André. 1999. “ Drafting Bilingual Statutes Harmonized with the Civil Law.“ The Harmonization of Federal Legislation with Quebec Civil Law and Canadian Bijuralism – Collection of studies ©1999, 305–346. Department of Justice Canada.Google Scholar
Morrison, Mary Jane. 1989. “Excursions into the Nature of Legal Language.“ Cleveland State Law Review 37:271–336.Google Scholar
Poggi, Francesca. 2011. “Law and Conversational Implicatures”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24: 21–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan, C. 1993. Language Engineering and Translation. Consequences of Automation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 1987. “Precedent.” Stanford Law Review 39/35: 571–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slocum, Brian, G. 2014. “The Ordinary Meaning of Rules“. In Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following, ed. by Michal Araszkiewicz, Pawel Banas, Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki and Krzysztof Pleszka, 295–317. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Slocum, Brian. 2017. “Pragmatics and Legal Texts: How Best to Account for the Gaps between Literal Meaning and Communicative Meaning”. In The Pragmatic Turn in Law. Inference and Interpretation in Legal Discourse, ed. by Janet Giltrow and Dieter Stein, vol. 18: Mouton Series in Pragmatics, 119–144. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stone, Christopher. 1981. “From a Language Perspective.” Yale Law Journal 90: 1149–1192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Ruth. 2004. “The Challenges of Interpreting Multilingual, Multijural Legislation.” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 29/3: 985–1066.Google Scholar
Tetley, William. 2003. “Nationalism in a Mixed Jurisdiction and the Importance of Language (South Africa, Israel, and Quebec/Canada).“ Tul. L. Rev. 78: 175–218.Google Scholar
Wellington, Louise Maguire. 2000. “Canadian Bijuralism: Harmonization Issues“. Terminology Update, 33/ 2.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Bijuralism in Canada: Harmonization Methodology and Terminology.“ In The Harmonization of Federal Legislation with the Civil Law of the Province of Quebec and Canadian Bijuralism. Second Publication, Booklet 4, Ottawa, Department of Justice Canada.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry G. 2004. Text, Context, Pretext. Critical issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, John. 1938. “Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell.” 16 Can Bar Rev 1:1–27.Google Scholar
Wußler, Annette. 1997. “Terminologie und Ideologie – Überlegungen aus translatologischer Sicht”. In Text – Kultur – Kommunikation: Translation als Forschungsaufgabe; Festschrift aus Anlaß des 50jährigen Bestehens des Instituts für Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung an der Universität Graz, ed. by Nadja Grbić and Michaela Wolf, 117–133. Tubinga: Stauffenburg-Verlag.Google Scholar
Yankova, Diana. 2010. “Reconciling Conceptual and Terminological Issues in Legal Texts: the Canadian Model.” In Multiculturalism and Integration. Canadian and Irish Experiences, ed. by Vera Regan, Isabelle Lemee, and Maeve Conrick, 217–226. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Youcef, Jihad, Mohd Nour Al Salem & Marwan Jarrah
2023. Errors in Arabic-English Translation of Documents from the Department of Lands and Survey in Jordan. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.