Transparency, Control and Power in Legal Semiotics: Contexts and Issues

Abstract

Legal discourse is different from most other professional discourses, in that the natureand context of its interpretation, whether spoken or written, is very often differentfrom those of other discourse contexts. Whereas in most professional and disciplinarycontexts interpretation of discourse is largely hearer or reader based, in that there issome freedom for variable interpretations, of course, with some relevance to thecontext in which it is being done, interpretation of legal discourse is most often basedon its relevance and hence application to critical moments of application inspecialized ‘sites of engagement’ ([1], p. 27) and is often irrespective of theparticipants involved and still every effort is made to ensure consistency ofinterpretation. It is particularly so in the case of legislative writing, which is drafted tocorrect a specific social mischief and hence invariably interpreted in the context ofrelevant descriptions of such instances of cases, often known as the material facts ofthe case to which specific legislative statements are applicable. The importantimplication of these factors is that legal discourse is rarely, if ever, interpreted invacuum and is almost always interpreted in the context of real life events.Interestingly enough, this does not mean that every time it is interpreted in the contextof a set of circumstances in real life, it is interpreted differently; contrary to that, it ismost often interpreted consistently and every time a specific interpretation is taken, itachieves the force of law, that is, it becomes a precedent for other decisions in asimilar setofdescriptionsofcases. Underlying thisconsistency ofinterpretationis theissue of the nature and extent of detailed specification (under or over specification)which is further related to the issues of transparency, power, and control in specificsocio-political contexts, which have important implications for the interpretation oflegal discourse in a range of socio-political and other public domains.We would like to reiterate that although clarity, precision, unambiguity, andall-inclusiveness are the four key aspects of the construction and interpretation of