Abstract
The relationship between legal interpretation and ordinary understanding has raised growing interest among legal scholars. According to the mainstream view, law is a communicative phenomenon and, therefore, the best theory of ordinary communication should also explain and guide legal interpretation. Certainly, it is very controversial which theory is the best one, but, even if there are many candidates, Grice’s conversation model has attracted a lot of attention. Some legal scholars claim that Grice’s theory of conversational maxims should be applied in legal domain, while others dispute this claim. Izabela Skoczen’s book, Implicatures within legal language provides an original contribution to this ongoing debate. Through an interdisciplinary approach that engages with the most recent advances in Pragmatics as well as with the most popular legal approaches, Skoczen recasts Grice’s theory of conversational implicatures in order to explain the mechanisms behind court decisions. This review article provides a critical examination of Skoczen’s book, highlighting its strengths as well as its problems.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
