Philosophical Foundations of the Legal Language
Keywords:legal reality, legal philosophy, epistemology, legal language, meaning, legal concepts, speech acts
This paper analyzes the essence of the philosophical foundations of the legal language as it is used in certain theories in the legal philosophy. The purpose of the paper is to provide a full study of the legal language theory to determine its place in modern philosophical legal thought.
The paper used methods of the history of philosophy, especially the method of rational reconstruction, and is based on the interpretation of the classical philosophical and legal texts (W. Waismann, J. L. Austin, H. Kelsen, H. Hart).
The main result of the paper is the justification that the unity of logic and epistemology became the ground of application of the analytical method in the field of legal knowledge from the legal language point of view.
The main conclusion of this paper is that the linguistic analysis of legal concepts for the justification of the legal decisions and their consequences expands the horizons of analytical legal philosophy and allows us to reveal the essence of legal reality in a new way.
The paper was carried out within the framework of the Narikbayev KAZGUU University research project “Readability of Law”.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bix, B. (1995). Conceptual Questions and Jurisprudence. Legal Theory, 1(4), 465-479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200000215
Didikin, A. B. (2018). Law as a linguistic phenomenon: Analytical approach. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the RAS, 13(5), 40-62.
Hart, H. L. A. (1949). The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 49, 171-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/49.1.171
Hart, H. L. A. (1994). Concept of law. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kahler, L. (2009). The influence of normative reasons on the formation of legal concepts. In J. Hage, & D. von der Pfordten (Ed.), Concepts in law (pp. 81-97). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2982-9_6
Kelsen, H. (1941). Causality and Retribution. Philosophy of Science, 8(4), 533-556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/286733
Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure theory of law. (M. Knight, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520312296
MacCormick, N. (1992). Legal deduction, legal predicates and expert systems. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 5(14), 181-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01101868
Masaki, Y. (2004). Critique of J. L. Austinís speech act theory: Decentralization of the speaker-centered meaning in communication. Kyushu Communication Studies, 155-175.
Ogleznev, V. V. (2018). The Frege-Geach problem, Modus Ponens, and legal language. Problemos, 93, 167-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.2018.93.11760
Ogleznev, V. V. (2022). Friedrich waismannís open texture argument and definability of empirical concepts. Philosophia. doi: 10.1007/s11406-022-00510-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-022-00510-2
Patterson, D. (2006). Dworkin on the semantics of legal and political concepts. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(3), 545-557 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql017
Russell, B. (1911). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 11(1), 108-128. doi: 10.1093/aristotelian/11.1.108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/11.1.108
Searle, J. R. (1989). How Performatives Work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 540-561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell Publishing.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 scientific journal WISDOM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC). CC BY-NC allows users to copy and distribute the article, provided this is not done for commercial purposes. The users may adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material giving appropriate credit, providing a link to the license. The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.