Normativity in Language and Law

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)

Standard

Normativity in Language and Law. / Silk, Alex.

Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. ed. / David Plunkett; Scott Shapiro; Kevin Toh. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)

Harvard

Silk, A 2016, Normativity in Language and Law. in D Plunkett, S Shapiro & K Toh (eds), Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press. <http://goo.gl/GSQkZi>

APA

Silk, A. (Accepted/In press). Normativity in Language and Law. In D. Plunkett, S. Shapiro, & K. Toh (Eds.), Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence Oxford University Press. http://goo.gl/GSQkZi

Vancouver

Silk A. Normativity in Language and Law. In Plunkett D, Shapiro S, Toh K, editors, Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press. 2016

Author

Silk, Alex. / Normativity in Language and Law. Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. editor / David Plunkett ; Scott Shapiro ; Kevin Toh. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Bibtex

@inbook{a732ba20daaa4081b21b00e82c9faa35,
title = "Normativity in Language and Law",
abstract = "This paper develops an account of the meaning and use of various typesof legal claims, and uses this account to inform debates about the nature andnormativity of law. The account draws on a more general framework for implementing a contextualist semantics and pragmatics, called Discourse Contextualism (Silk 2016). The aim of Discourse Contextualism is to derive theapparent normativity of claims of law from a particular contextualist interpretation of a standard semantics for modals, along with general principles of interpretation and conversation. Though the semantics is descriptivist, I arguethat it avoids Dworkin{\textquoteright}s influential criticism of so-called “semantic theories oflaw,” and elucidates the nature of “theoretical disagreements” about the criteriaof legal validity. The account sheds light on the important social, interpersonalrole of normative uses of language in legal discourse. It also gives precise expression to Hart{\textquoteright}s and Raz{\textquoteright}s intuitive distinctions among types of legal claims(internal/external, committed/detached), while giving them a uniform type ofanalysis. The proposed semantics and pragmatics of legal claims provides afruitful framework for further (meta)normative theorizing about the natureand metaphysics of law, the relation between law and morality, and the apparentpractical character of legal language and judgment. Delineating these issues can lead to a more refined understanding of the space of overall theories.Discourse Contextualism provides a solid linguistic basis for a broader account of legal discourse and practice.",
author = "Alex Silk",
year = "2016",
month = feb,
day = "3",
language = "English",
editor = "David Plunkett and Scott Shapiro and Kevin Toh",
booktitle = "Dimensions of Normativity",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Normativity in Language and Law

AU - Silk, Alex

PY - 2016/2/3

Y1 - 2016/2/3

N2 - This paper develops an account of the meaning and use of various typesof legal claims, and uses this account to inform debates about the nature andnormativity of law. The account draws on a more general framework for implementing a contextualist semantics and pragmatics, called Discourse Contextualism (Silk 2016). The aim of Discourse Contextualism is to derive theapparent normativity of claims of law from a particular contextualist interpretation of a standard semantics for modals, along with general principles of interpretation and conversation. Though the semantics is descriptivist, I arguethat it avoids Dworkin’s influential criticism of so-called “semantic theories oflaw,” and elucidates the nature of “theoretical disagreements” about the criteriaof legal validity. The account sheds light on the important social, interpersonalrole of normative uses of language in legal discourse. It also gives precise expression to Hart’s and Raz’s intuitive distinctions among types of legal claims(internal/external, committed/detached), while giving them a uniform type ofanalysis. The proposed semantics and pragmatics of legal claims provides afruitful framework for further (meta)normative theorizing about the natureand metaphysics of law, the relation between law and morality, and the apparentpractical character of legal language and judgment. Delineating these issues can lead to a more refined understanding of the space of overall theories.Discourse Contextualism provides a solid linguistic basis for a broader account of legal discourse and practice.

AB - This paper develops an account of the meaning and use of various typesof legal claims, and uses this account to inform debates about the nature andnormativity of law. The account draws on a more general framework for implementing a contextualist semantics and pragmatics, called Discourse Contextualism (Silk 2016). The aim of Discourse Contextualism is to derive theapparent normativity of claims of law from a particular contextualist interpretation of a standard semantics for modals, along with general principles of interpretation and conversation. Though the semantics is descriptivist, I arguethat it avoids Dworkin’s influential criticism of so-called “semantic theories oflaw,” and elucidates the nature of “theoretical disagreements” about the criteriaof legal validity. The account sheds light on the important social, interpersonalrole of normative uses of language in legal discourse. It also gives precise expression to Hart’s and Raz’s intuitive distinctions among types of legal claims(internal/external, committed/detached), while giving them a uniform type ofanalysis. The proposed semantics and pragmatics of legal claims provides afruitful framework for further (meta)normative theorizing about the natureand metaphysics of law, the relation between law and morality, and the apparentpractical character of legal language and judgment. Delineating these issues can lead to a more refined understanding of the space of overall theories.Discourse Contextualism provides a solid linguistic basis for a broader account of legal discourse and practice.

M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)

BT - Dimensions of Normativity

A2 - Plunkett, David

A2 - Shapiro, Scott

A2 - Toh, Kevin

PB - Oxford University Press

ER -