Law and Semiotics

Anne Wagner, Université du Littoral Côte d'Opale, and Jan M. Broekman, Pennsylvania State University School of Law, have published Prospect of Legal Semiotics (Springer, forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

This book examines the progress to date in the many facets – conceptual, epistemological and methodological - of the field of legal semiotics. It reflects the fulfillment of the promise of legal semiotics when used to explore the law, its processes and interpretation. This study in Legal Semiotics brings together the theory, structure and practice of legal semiotics in an accessible style. The book introduces the concepts of legal semiotics and offers an insight in contemporary and future directions which the semiotics of law is going to take. A theoretical and practical oriented synthesis of the historical, contemporary and most recent ideas pertaining to legal semiotics, the book will be of interest to scholars and researchers in law and social sciences, as well as those who are interested in the interdisciplinary dynamics of law and semiotics.

“The dependence of law upon the media of its transmission has long constituted a controversial open border with other disciplines. Prospects of Legal Semiotics takes a radical and expansive view of possible frameworks for addressing the signs of law in an increasingly virtual and predominantly visual epoch of global dissemination. Wagner and Broekman are especially to be commended for the imaginative and rigorous manner in which they have opened legal semiotics to a novel methodological interrogation at the same time as they have encouraged analyses that go beyond the established jurisdiction of law.”

Legal Language and Its Meaning

Andrei Marmor, USC Gould School of Law, has published "Can the Law Imply More than it Says? On Some Pragmatic Aspects of Strategic Speech," as USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 09-43. Here is the abstract.

The content of the law is often determined by what legal authorities communicate. Both lawyers and philosophers of language know very well, however, that the full content of communication in a natural language often goes beyond the meaning of the words and sentences uttered by the speaker. Semantics and syntax are essential vehicles for conveying communicative content, but the content conveyed on particular occasions of speech is often pragmatically enriched by various factors. The standard model in the pragmatics literature, however, focuses on ordinary conversations, in which the parties are presumed to engage in a cooperative exchange of information. The legal context offers an example of conversation that is strategic in nature. Part of my purpose here is to show that the pragmatics of strategic conversation has certain features that deviate from the standard model.

The first section focuses on two main instances of implied communicative content, namely, implicatures and utterance presuppositions. I argue that in both of these cases, there is an important distinction between implied content that is semantically encoded in the utterance - and therefore forms part of what the law communicatively determines - and implied content that is essentially contextual and thus much more problematic in the legal case. In the second section I focus on the idea of pragmatic commitments and their normative foundations. My main concern here is to explore the normative framework of strategic speech and ways in which it differs from ordinary conversations. Finally, I will try to explain in what sense legal speech is strategic, and demonstrate how the pragmatic aspects of strategic speech actually work in the legal context.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Call For Papers

From Anne Wagner, Editor, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law

We live in a world of rapid global changes, which we nonetheless seek to understand with reference to general concepts. This world of change can be described in many different ways by taking account of a variety of factors. Among these we can distinguish a specific world-wide tendency for democratization, with social, individual and political dimensions. As some have pointed out, there are very few political orders today that would not claim to be democratic.

This peculiar global trend however gives rise to questions as well as problems, the most important of which seems to concern the question whether the “democratic turn” is real or virtual. Democracy generally means government by the people. Does this then mean that any kind of government by the people can claim to be democratic, or is democracy a more limited concept? What – if any – are the normative requirements of democracy? Democracy, after all, is not simply a descriptive model of government; it is a deeply rooted preference and hence functions as normative blueprint, often expressed in founding principles. Democracy is thus a thoroughly normative model. At the same time, it is constructed and finds expression in different ways in different times and places.

Does this mean that democracy, as a normative project, is such only for a certain section of the world and not for sections that believe in different gods, philosophies or value systems? Perhaps democratic principles are to be understood from a rational, secular value perspective (post-Weberian values) as formal frameworks that give people the possibility to fill them in with their own convictions of the preferred norms that should be obeyed in the name of equality and freedom. Does democracy not however imply a specific form of civic engagement and participation? Does democracy not also entail self-expression based on autonomy? Democracy does appear to give expression to post-traditional values which are not as yet dominant throughout the world. For this reason the further question arises as to the legal nature of a democratic political order. Are - following Sir Neil MacCormick - normative order, institutional normative order and institutional order three different kinds of order, do they overlap, or do they perhaps have the same source that keeps dividing itself into different orders?

Should morally impartial legal rules be the regarded as the most important or perhaps as the only support for peace in a pluralistic world? But then, rephrasing somewhat Ronald Dworkin’s question, we can ask how – if at all – democracy is possible here?

* * *



The 9th International Roundtable for the Semiotics of Law invites all those who are interested in problems concerning Legal Rules, Moral Norms and Democratic Principles to take part in our roundtable discussion in Poznań (Poland). The perspective adopted by participants – whether purely semiotic, legal, philosophical, sociological, cultural, sociolinguistic etc. – can be freely chosen by each participant.



We invite everyone interested in participating in The 9th International Roundtable for the Semiotics of Law to send us an abstract by the 1st of May 2010. It should be prepared in either English or French (max 300 words) and sent by e-mail to bartwoj@op.pl; karolinacern@yahoo.com; juchaczp@amu.edu.pl and to Anne Wagner at valwagnerfr@yahoo.com .



Selected papers will be published in a special annual issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (http://www.springer.com/).


Anne Wagner, Ph. D., Université du Littoral Côte d'Opale (France)

Research Professor, China University of Political Science and Law (Beijing)

http://www.semioticon.com/semiotix/semiotix13/sem-13-05-01.html

Call for Papers

The 9th International Roundtable for Semiotics of Law (IRSL 2010), 3-6 September 2010 - Poznań

Legal Rules, Moral Norms AND Democratic Principles


Conveners:
Adam Mickiewicz University Poznań, University of Łódź, Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk

Conference Venue:
Department of Philosophy, Adam Mickiewicz University & PTPN, Poznań


Honorary Chairmen:

Prof. Tadeusz Buksiński
Director of Department of Philosophy
Adam Mickiewicz University Poznań

Prof. Marek Zirk-Sadowski
Chairman of the Department Theory and Philosophy of Law at the University of Łódź
Vice – president of the International Association for Legal and Social Philosophy (IVR)
Vice-president of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court


Organizing Committee:

Dr Karolina M. Cern Dr Piotr W. Juchacz Dr Bartosz Wojciechowski
Poznań Poznań Łódź


* * *
CALL FOR PAPERS

We live in the world of rapid global changes, nonetheless, we try to manage the solid universal development. There are many differing factors aiming at the most exact and fruitful description of the world in change. Among them we can distinguish a specific world-wide tendency for democratization of our lives in social, individual and political dimensions. As some point out, there are just a few political orders that would not claim themselves democratic ones.
Though, this peculiar global trend gives rise to doubts as well as problems, the most profound seems to concern the question whether the “democratic turn” is a real or just a virtue one. Democracy generally means the governance by people – but who are the people? What kind of governance by people can be claimed democratic – everyone or only a chosen one?
What – if any – is the normative issue of such a governance? Democracy, after all, is not a simple descriptive model of governance; it is deeply rooted in our preferences and hence normative patterns of conduct which are not yet to be understood as the norm but rather as founding principles. Democracy is a thoroughly normative model. It is always as constructed and uttered in the picture of life at the same time.
Does it mean that democracy, as a normative project, can fit only a part of our world and can not fit the other part believing in different gods, philosophies or systems of values? Or maybe democratic principles are to be understood from a secular-rational value perspective (postweberian values) as formal frames that give people real possibility to fill it with theirs convictions of the preferred norms that should be obeyed in the name of equality and freedom. But does it not presume a special civil engagement and a strong civil participation? Further, does it not entail self-expression built on a strong feeling of a self-direction? All of it utters posttraditional values which are not yet dominant throughout the world. For this reason a question is raised, what, if any, is the legal issue of democratic political order. Are - following Sir Neil MacCormick - normative order, institutional normative order and institutional order three different ones or cross themselves somewhere or do they even have the same issue that keeps dividing itself into different orders?
Should be morally impartial legal rules the great if not the only support for peace in a pluralistic world? But then, altering Ronald Dworkin’s question, we can ask how is – if it is at all - democracy possible here?
* * *

The 9th International Roundtable for the Semiotics of Law invites all interested in problems concerning Legal Rules, Moral Norms and Democratic Principles to take part in our meeting in Poznań (Poland). The perspective of considerations – whether it is purely semiotic, legal, philosophical, sociological, cultural, sociolinguistic etc. – is free to be chosen by each participant.

We invite everyone who would be interested to participate in The 9th International Roundtable for the Semiotics of Law to send us an application till the 1st of May 2010. It should be prepared in either English or French (max 300 words) and sent by e-mail to bartwoj@op.pl; karolinacern@yahoo.com; juchaczp@amu.edu.pl and to Anne Wagner at valwagnerfr@yahoo.com .

Selected papers will be published in a special annual issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (http://www.springer.com/).

Call for Papers

From the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, announcement of a Call for Papers for a Special Issue. Submit abstracts to the editors of the special issue,
Jan Engberg Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University: je@asb.dk

Kirsten Wølch Rasmussen, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University: kwr@asb.dk

SPECIAL ISSUE ON "COGNITION, MEANING MAKING, AND LEGAL ARGUMENTATION"


This is an invitation for a special issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. The issue should comprise papers on the cognitive or knowledge oriented aspects of the socially-situated process of constructing meaning from legal sources (statutes, contracts, …) that legal specialists perform when engaging in legal argumentation (for example when writing judgements or law review articles). Contributions based on empirical research into the actual cognitive processes of legal experts are especially welcome, as well as other types of scientifically based papers on the relations between meaning making through legal argumentation and cognitive or knowledge oriented factors like knowledge structures, metaphors, or individual knowledge bases, just to mention a few examples.



Only original and unpublished articles will be considered. The refereeing process follows the normal double blind review process of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law.



Date of submission to the editors (Abstracts): 1 August 2009.

Outcome for authors: 1 September 2009

Date of submission (Full papers): To be submitted by 30 October 2009.

Final version of papers: To be submitted by 15 February 2010.



Editors of the special issue:

Jan Engberg Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University: je@asb.dk

Kirsten Wølch Rasmussen, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University: kwr@asb.dk

Length of preliminary abstract: approx. 750 words + bibliography.



Language: English or French

We expect to accept up to 6 papers for publication in the special issue.



Manuscript length: up to 10.000 words



Language of manuscripts: English or French



Title Page: on a separate page include the name of the author; Title of the article; Affiliation and e-mail addresses of the author.

Abstract: Please provide an abstract of 100 to 150 words. The abstract should not contain any undefined abbreviations or unspecified references.

Acknowledgements: Acknowledgments of people, grants, funds, etc. should be placed in a separate section before the reference list/bibliography. The names of funding organizations should be written in full.

Text format: Justified double space 12 Point Times New Roman font; Justified double space 10 Point Times New Roman for quotes of more than 40 words to be set out from the text by a line above and below; Footnotes justified double space 10 Point Times New Roman [to be used sparingly].
No extra line between paragraphs.
Indent paragraphs by 1 cm from the margin except for the first paragraph of each section.

Citation style:



In the article itself, number links appear to the bibliography, for example: [2, p. 182], [4, p. 93; 1, p. 55] or [5; 6; 8]

The References should be listed at the end of the article in the order in which the references appear in the text of the article, for example:



Derrida, Jacques. 1992. Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Acts of Religion, ed Gil Anidjar. New York and London: Routledge.
Derrida, Jacques. 1994. Specters of Marx: The State of Debt, the Work of Mourning, and The New International, translated by Peggy Kamuf. New York and London: Routledge.
Bennington, Geoffrey and Jacques Derrida. 1993. Derridabase/Circumfession. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Marrati. Paola Marrati. 2005. Genesis and Trace: Derrida Reading Husserl and Heidegger. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.


The International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (2008) 21(2) can usefully be consulted as a guide.



References/Bibliography: The list of references should only include works that are cited in the text and that have been published or accepted for publication.

Footnotes: Footnotes are numbered consecutively and should be placed after the punctuation

Paul Ricoeur and Legal Hermeneutics

George H. Taylor, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, has published The Distinctiveness of Legal Hermeneutics, in Ricoeur Across the Disciplines (Scott Davidson ed.; The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009). Here is the abstract.

In the larger field of hermeneutics, legal hermeneutics is characteristically described as exemplary. While I detail ways in which legal hermeneutics is paradigmatic – particularly in its immersion in application to new cases – more generally I argue that its insights are more regional. I contend in particular that Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics offers much to refine the insights of legal hermeneutics, but the discreteness of the field of legal interpretation requires refinement of Ricoeur’s own theory.

The chapter proceeds in three steps. First, I briefly review the main themes of Ricoeur’s hermeneutics, particularly his emphasis on the semantic autonomy of the text, and draw upon examples from the American legal context that generally support and extend the significance of Ricoeur’s insight. Second, I turn to the limitations of Ricoeur’s general hermeneutics as applied to American legal interpretation. The author of the legal text does retain a significance in legal interpretation that is not required in other fields. Because a legal author – a legislature or court – requires obedience to the terms of a text it promulgates, its expression is limited to the range of its legitimate authority. Third, I show how the law can act as an exemplary form of hermeneutics in its attention to the application of meaning to particular circumstances. As Gadamer anticipated and as Ricoeur more expansively details, legal hermeneutics here does offer insights into a more general hermeneutics in its imaginative correlation between meaning and application.

Annual Reports: They're For Research Now

Gaetan Breton, University du Quebec (Montreal), has published "Semiotic Analysis of Storytelling in the Annual Report." Here is the abstract.

This paper wants to explore the use of semiotics analysis to better understand the annual report. We start with the idea that the annual report is telling stories to the reader. As a form of novel, we can analyse it with the same instrument.

Our purpose here is methodological. We want to propose an organized body of techniques that will allow anybody to conduct analysis from it. Therefore we use uniquely one example, to illustrate the method.

The advantages of semiotics over content analysis are numerous. Content analysis remains quite trivial (counting words) while semiotics analysis take into account the structure of the story at many levels.

Framed by the categories of the Aristotle's rhetoric, we develop a method that is replicable with a limited background in the source disciplines. Our results suggest that the annual report is clearly telling stories and respond quite positively to this kind of approach.

Download the paper from SSRN here.

New Publication: Diversity and Tolerance in Socio-Legal Contexts: Explorations in the Semiotics of Law

DIVERSITY AND TOLERANCE IN SOCIO-LEGAL CONTEXTS: EXPLORATIONS IN THE SEMIOTICS OF LAW, Wagner, Anne and Bhatia, Vijay K., eds., Ashgate, 2009

Here is the abstract.

Why is there so much resistance to recent issues of tolerance and diversity? Despite efforts of the international community to encourage open-mindedness, recent attempts at international, political and economic integration have shown that religious, cultural and ethnic tolerance and diversity remain under threat. The contributions in the volume reflect the growing importance of these issues and why resistance is so widespread. Part I addresses the relationship between the language of law and its power, whilst Part II explores the interplay of tolerance and diversity under visual, legislative and interpretative perspectives. This collection as a whole offers a combination of varied perspectives on the analysis, application and exploitation of laws and will be a valuable source of information for those interested in the general area of language and the law.

Contents: Foreword, Sophie Cacciaguidi-Fahy; Introduction: the international dual nature of law: tolerance and diversity, Anne Wagner and Vijay K. Bhatia; Part I The Semiotic Foundation of Diversity and Tolerance: Tolerance, pluralism and 'fighting faiths': seeking the sources of US constitutional meaning, Frederick P. Lewis; 'When the law speaks': acts of intolerance, threats to group-identity, and confidence in law and rights, Ira L. Strauber; Mediated semiosis in the courtroom: non-verbal communicators and the usefulness of audio video technology as a tool by which to oversee justice, Isabell Petrinic; The Roma way, Istven H. Szilegyi; 'Une certaine ide de l'homme, une certaine ide de la France': the rhetorical construction of tolerance in French political discourse, Pamela Hobbs; Shifts in the concept of war: new war terminology and its legal consequences, Hanneke van Schooten. Part II Case Analyses of Diversity and Tolerance: Branding Barcelona: semiotic considerations in contemporary sovereignty, John Brigham; Legality beyond the scope of policy, Sarah Marusek; On sight/on site: visuality in native title claims: can we even speak?, Tracey Summerfield and Alec McHoul; Race, class and the Supreme Court: Rodriguez v. San Antonio School Independent School District (1973), William Pencak; Legal terms across communities: divergence behind convergence in law, Le Cheng and King Kui Sin; Women as legal subjects and objects in contemporary China, Deborah Cao; Conclusion: researching exploration in the semiotics of the law, Christopher N. Candlin; Bibliography; Index

Law and Semiotics

Here is the table of contents for volume 22 of the International Journal of the Semiotics of Law (no. 1, 2009--Special Issue: Lawyers Making Meaning - the Roberta Kevelson Seminar on Law and Semiotics.

The contents of the Special Issue: Lawyers Making Meaning - The Roberta Kevelson Seminar on Law and Semiotics, Guest Editors: Jan Broekman and William Pencak is as follows:

Jan M. Broekman, William Pencak / Lawyers Making Meaning

Francis J. Mootz III / Vico and Imagination: An Ingenious Approach to Educating Lawyers with Semiotic Sensibility

Denis J. Brion / Trial Argumentation: The Creation of Meaning

Jan M. Broekman / Face to Face

Philip Grier / Gustav Shpet and the Semiotics of 'Living Discourse'

William Pencak / The Lawyer, the Judge, and the Historian: Shaping the Meaning of the Boston Massacre, American Revolution, and Popular Opinion from 1770 to the Present Day

Michelle L. Wirth / Who's You Daddy? -- Or: Using Semiotic Tools to Deconstruct Legal Determinations of Who Holds Parenthood Obligations and Privileges

Jeffrey A. Ellsworth / Michael H. v. Gerald D.': A Case Study of Political Ideology Disguised in Legal Thought


Book review/Paper reviews

Paper Review: Etat (Postmoderne) de droit, Logique textuelle et theorie micropolitique du droit: sur un exemple de pensee juridique "Soft" (Guillaume Tusseau)

Review Paper: Derrida and legal scholarship: A Certain Step Beyond (by Jacques de Ville).

Culbert, Jennifer. L. Dead Certainty: The Death Penalty and the Problem of Judgment, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008. 235 pages (index). (by George Pavlich).