An exploration of the semantic domain of legal language

Pi-Chan Hu; Jian Li

doi:10.1515/sem-2016-0001

Article

An exploration of the semantic domain of legal language

Pi-Chan Hu and Jian Li

Published/Copyright: January 21, 2016

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Semiotica Volume 2016 Issue 209

Abstract

Whenever necessary, legal professionals expand or restrict the semantic domain of legal terms to justify their reasoning or ruling. The semantic domain expands or contracts in size depending on the different approaches towards interpretations adopted by legal professionals. This research illustrates the interpretations of judges and prosecutors of legal terms with empirical cases and court opinions. In the field of Criminal Law, the semantic domain often leads to the domain of criminal culpability and punishment. The shift in the semantic domain of legal terms matters a great deal to all of the stakeholders in a case. When the domain grows too broad, it will criminalize citizens beyond the intention of the Legislature. When the domain shrinks too much, the victims will not receive justice. Therefore, legal professionals have to be exceedingly modest and cautious when playing their roles as law interpreters.

Keywords: semantic domain; legal language; expanded interpretation; restricted interpretation; analogical interpretation

References

Chang, Li Qing. 2008. The theory and application of the general rules of the criminal law. Taizhong: L. Q. Chang.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & Winnie Cheng. 2012. Legal interpretation: Meaning as social construction. Semiotica 192(1/4). 427–448.10.1515/sem-2012-0086Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2008a. A court judgment as dialogue. In Edda Weigand (ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric, 267–281. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/ds.2.21cheSearch in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2008b. Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach. Semiotica 172(1/4). 33–45.10.1515/SEMI.2008.088Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2009. Legal terms across communities: Divergence behind convergence in law. In Anne Wagner & Vijay K. Bhatia (eds.), Diversity and tolerance in socio-legal context: Explorations in the semiotics of law, 181–190. Aldershot: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar

Fletcher, George P. 1998. Basic concepts of criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gan, Tian Guei. 2012. Xingfa Zonglun Jiangyi [The handouts to the general theory of the criminal law]. Taipei: Rayxing.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbons, John (ed.). 1994. Language and the law. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. London: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Roy & Christopher Hutton. 2007. Definition in theory and practice: Language, lexicography, and the law. London & New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Zhong Fu. 2012. Xingfa Jingyi [Essences of criminal law]. Taipei: Angle.Search in Google Scholar

Hutton, Chris. 2009. Language, meaning, and the law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633500.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Jackson, Bernard S. 1992. “The wisdom of the inessential” (review article on Douzinas, Warrington and McVeigh, Postmodern Jurisprudence). Legal Studies 12(1). 103–117.10.1111/j.1748-121X.1992.tb00460.xSearch in Google Scholar

Jackson, Bernard S. 1995. Making sense in law. Liverpool: Deborah Charles.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, Dong Mau. 2012. Xingfa Zonglan [General overview of criminal law]. Taipei: Yi-ping.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, Yu Xiung. 2013. The flexible substantial influence and power of official duties. http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2013/new/may/6/today-o2.htm (accessed 2 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Ottenheimer, Harriet J. 2006. The anthropology of language: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Search in Google Scholar

Oxford online dictionary. 2013. Domain. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/domain?q=domain (accessed 2 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Saeed, John I. 2009. Semantics, 3rd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Solan, Lawrence M. 1993. The language of judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Solan, Lawrence M. 2010. The language of the statutes: Laws and their interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226767987.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Solan, L. M. & Peter M. Tiersma. 2005. Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press10.7208/chicago/9780226767871.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Stone, Julius. 1964. Legal system and lawyers’ reasonings. California, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tiersma, Peter M. & Lawrence M. Solan (eds.). 2012. The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, Anne. 2009. The European cultural ecumene, legal pluralism. In Bartosz Wojciechowski, Marek Zirk-Sadowski & Mariusz Golecki (eds.), Multicentrism as an emerging paradigm in legal theory, 29–50. London: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Wydick, R. C. 2005. Plain English for lawyers, 5th edn. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-1-21

Published in Print: 2016-3-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0001

Keywords for this article

semantic domain; legal language; expanded interpretation; restricted interpretation; analogical interpretation