Abstract
Different linguistic theories of meaning (semantic theories) imply different methods to discuss meaning. Discussing meaning is what legal practitioners frequently do to decide legal issues and, subsequently, legal scholars analyse in their studies these discursive practices of parties, judges and legal experts. Such scholarly analysis reveals a methodical choice on how to discuss meaning and therefore implies positioning oneself towards a semantic theory of meaning, whether the scholar is aware of this or not. Legal practitioners may not be bound to be consistent in their commitment to semantic theories, as their task is to decide legal issues. Legal scholars, however, should be consistent because commitment to a semantic theory implies a distinct position towards important legal theoretical doctrines. In this paper three examples are discussed that require an articulated position of the legal scholar because the discursive practices of legal practitioners show inconsistencies. For each of these examples it can be shown that a scholar’s methodic choice implies commitment to a specific semantic theory, and that adopting such a theory implies a distinct position towards the meaning of the Rule of Law, the separation of powers doctrine and the institutional position of the judge.
Highlights
When we look up a definition of method, we find in for example the Cambridge dictionary: ‘a particular way of doing something’
It presupposes that we are aware that we act methodically; that we know that we could have gone about it in a different way that makes sense in the eyes of a relevant forum; that we identify that a different choice may have different implications
I have shown how even a single remark in a research report about a legal discursive practice, in particular about processes of meaning construction, inevitably implies a methodic choice because it assumes the adoption of a semantic theory that has alternatives
Summary
When we look up a definition of method, we find in for example the Cambridge dictionary: ‘a particular way of doing something’. To show how conceptualising verbal meaning implies methodical choices that have theoretically relevant implications in legal scholarly research, three examples are considered that force the legal scholar to choose between alternative theories of meaning because he or she is confronted with a practice that seems to contain an inconsistency in modelling verbal meaning. This inevitably forces the scholar to take a position concerning which of the incompatible models he or she adopts. In all three examples it can be shown that taking a view implies choosing a specific theory of meaning (semantic theory), and it can be shown that adopting a specific semantic theory relates to legal theoretical issues
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
