Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:04:59.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deontic contexts and the interpretation of disjunction in legal discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Martin Aher
Martin Aher*
Affiliation:
University of Osnabrück
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the interpretation of or in legal texts, focusing on two puzzles: “inclusive/exclusive” or and “free choice permission”. The study first examines various examples of or in American court cases described by Solan and the “and/or” rule that he describes. It then turns to occurrences of or in a different legal domain, that of the World Trade Organization, giving a brief introduction to the WTO dispute mechanism and its principles of interpretation before examining these occurrences of or. The study then introduces the inquisitive semantics framework as a way to account for these occurrences, offering an analysis of the inclusive/exclusive or and free choice or puzzles and of the interaction of or with obligation, permission, and negation more generally.

Résumé

Résumé

Cette étude porte sur 1’interprétation de or (‘ou’) dans les textes juridiques et se concentre sur deux questions : or «inclusif/exclusif» et or «autorisation de libre choix». L’étude examine tout d’abord la question de or dans divers exemples d’affaires judiciaires américaines décrites par Solan et la régie de type and/or (‘et/ou’) qu’il décrit. Elle s’inteYesse ensuite à des occurrences de or dans un autre domaine juridique, celui de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce, et présente brièvement le mécanisme de reglement des différends de l’OMC et ses principes d’interprétation, avant d’examiner ces occurrences de or. L’étude présente la sémantique inquisitive comme moyen de rendre compte de ces occurrences, pour ensuite offrir une analyse des problématiques du or inclusif/exclusif et du or de libre choix et de 1’interaction de or avec les sens d’obligation, de permission et de négation.

Keywords

deonticinquisitive semanticsfree choicelegal languageWTOdéontiquesémantique inquisitivelibre choixlangue juridiqueOMC
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 1: Temporal and modal dimensions of legal discourses , March 2013 , pp. 13 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, Kenneth A. 2004. A manual of style for contract drafting. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Adams, Kenneth A. and Kaye, Alan S.. 2006. Revisiting the ambiguity of “and” and “or” in legal drafting. St. John’s Law Review 80:1167-1195.Google Scholar
Aher, Martin. 2009. A feasibility case study about interpreting disjunction in legal discourse with semantic and pragmatic models. M.A. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Aher, Martin. 2012. Free choice in deontic inquisitive semantics. In Logic, language, and meaning: Selected papers from the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. Aloni, Maria, Kimmelman, Vadim, Roelofsen, Floris, Sassoon, Galit Weidman, Schulz, Katrin, and Westera, Matthijs, 22-31. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Anderson, Alan R. 1967. Some nasty problems in the formal logic of ethics. Nous 1:345-360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano. 2010. A first-order inquisitive semantics. In Logic, language, and meaning: Selected papers from the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. Aloni, Maria, Bastiaanse, Harald, Jager, Tikitu de, and Schulz, Katrin, 234-243. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano, Groenendijk, Jeroen A.G., and Roelofsen, Floris. 2012. Inquisitive Semantics: NASSLLI 2012 lecture notes, University of Amsterdam. Available at: bit.ly/V6uWy6.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano, Groenendijk, Jeroen A.G., and Roelofsen, Floris. To appear. Towards a logic of information exchange: An inquisitive witness semantics. In Proceedings of the 9th Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation, ed. Bezhanishvili, G., Lbbner, S., Marra, V., and Richter, F., pp. 51-72. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen A.G. 2009. Inquisitive semantics: Two possibilities for disjunction. In Proceedings of the 7th International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation, ed. Bosch, Peter, Gabelaia, David, and Lang, Jérôme, pp. 80-94, Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen A.G. and Roelofsen, Floris. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Paper presented at the Stanford Workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris. 2010. Radical inquisitive semantics. Paper presented at the University of Osnabriick Institute of Cognitive Science Colloquium. Available at: bit.ly/NF09zn.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Payne, John, and Peterson, Peter. 2002. Coordination and supplementation. In Cambridge grammar of the English language, ed. Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey, 1273-1362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1973. Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74:57-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matsushita, Mitsuo, Schoenbaum, Thomas J., and Mavroidis, Petros C. 2006. The World Trade Organization: Law, practice, and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The language of the law. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P. 1990. General propositions and causality. Reprinted in Philosophical Papers, ed. Mellor, D.H., 145-163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [1929].Google Scholar
Ross, Alf. 1941. Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7:53-71.Google Scholar
Sano, Katsuhiko. 2010. A note on support and rejection for radical inquisitive semantics. Ms., Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger. 2007. A dozen reasons why linguistic expertise is rejected in court. Ms., Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2005. Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13:271-316.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. 1993. The language of judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9:315-332. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Ruth. 2008. Sullivan on the construction of statutes. 5th ed. Markham, ON: Lexis-Nexis Canada.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. 2012. Dispute settlement: Procedures. Appellate Procedures. Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/ab_procedures_e.htm.Google Scholar
Wright, Von and Henrik, Georg. 1951. Deontic Logic. Mind, new series 60(237):1–15.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8:255–290.Google Scholar