Ratio Juris 29 (1):3-22 (2016)

Authors
Luke William Hunt
University of Alabama
Abstract
Interpreting the content of the law is not limited to what a relevant lawmaker utters. This paper examines the extent to which implied and implicit content is part of the law, and specifically whether the Gricean concept of conversational implicature is relevant in determining the content of law. Recent work has focused on how this question relates to acts of legislation. This paper extends the analysis to case law and departs from the literature on several key issues. The paper's argument is based upon two points: Precedent-setting judicial opinions may consist of multiple conversations, of which some entail opposing implicata, and if a particular precedent-setting judicial opinion consists of multiple conversations, of which some entail opposing implicata, then no meaningful conversational implicatum is part of the content of that particular precedent-setting opinion. Nevertheless, the paper's conclusion leaves open the prospect of gleaning something in between conversational implicature and what is literally said, namely, conversational impliciture
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/raju.12113
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Law of Peoples.John Rawls - 1999 - Harvard University Press.
Studies in the Way of Words.H. P. Grice - 1989 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
The Law of Peoples.John Rawls - 2001 - Philosophical Quarterly 51 (203):246-253.
Common Ground.Robert Stalnaker - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):701-721.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Implicatures in Judicial Opinions.Marat Shardimgaliev - 2019 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 32 (2):391-415.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Conversational Implicature, Communicative Intentions, and Content.Ray Buchanan - 2013 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43 (5):720-740.
The Meaning of a Precedent.Barbara Baum Levenbook - 2000 - Legal Theory 6 (2):185-240.
Direct Reference and Implicature.Mitchell S. Green - 1998 - Philosophical Studies 91 (1):61-90.
What Does History Matter to Legal Epistemology?Maksymilian Del Mar - 2011 - Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (3):383-405.
The Conversational Role of Centered Contents.Max Kölbel - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (2-3):97-121.
Expression in the Representational Arts.Catharine Abell - 2013 - American Philosophical Quarterly 50 (1):23-36.
Content, Mood, and Force.Francois Recanati - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (7):622-632.
Two Types of Implicature: Material and Behavioural.Mark Jary - 2013 - Mind and Language 28 (5):638-660.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-02-24

Total views
44 ( #216,627 of 2,340,238 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #99,414 of 2,340,238 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes