Home Linguistics & Semiotics Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency

  • Sol Azuelos-Atias EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: January 23, 2016

Abstract

I present a tool of interpretation that can be applied to legal texts. The tool is intended for people who wish to make sure that they thoroughly understand a certain text – including the meanings hidden between its lines in general, and in particular for legal laypersons who wish to make sure that they thoroughly understand a legal text.

I have developed this tool of interpretation from the relevance-theoretic communicative principle of relevance; I will show that the tool supplies a general method of demonstrating that certain meanings (including meta-forms, implications, and socio-semiotic meanings) are hidden in a communicated text. According to relevance theory, the interpretation accepted by the addressees of a spoken utterance reconstructs the speaker’s meaning; the tool of interpretation enables other recipients of the utterance’s text to identify the addressee’s interpretation. This tool consists of three conditions that function as a criterion of correctness of interpretations in the following sense: if an interpretation meets the three conditions then it is the addressee’s interpretation – the interpretation that reconstructs the meanings the text’s producer intended to convey, whether these meanings were presented explicitly or not.

References

Azuelos-Atias, S. 2010. Semantically cued unspoken assumptions in the legal text. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 728–743.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.009Search in Google Scholar

Azuelos-Atias, Sol. 2015. Manipulation by deliberate failure of communication. Pragmatics & Society 6(4). 502–516.10.1075/ps.6.4.02azuSearch in Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2004. Explicature and semantics. In S. Davis & B. Gillon (eds.), Semantics: A reader, 817–845. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2013. Legal texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory. In Michael Freeman & Fiona Smith (eds.), Law and language (Current Legal Issues 15), 8–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Carston, R. & Hall, A. 2011. Implicature and explicature. In H.-J. Schmid & D. Geeraerts (eds.), Cognitive pragmatics (Handbooks in Pragmatics 4), 47–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214215.47Search in Google Scholar

Horn, L. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2000a. H. P. Grice on location on Rossel Island. Berkeley Linguistics Society 25. 210–224.10.3765/bls.v25i1.1188Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2000b. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: Bradford/MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Recanati, F. 2012. Pragmatic enrichment. In G. Russell & D. Graff Fara (eds.), Companion to the philosophy of language, 67–78. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 2005. Pragmatics. In F. Jackson & M. Smith (eds.), Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy, 468–501. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. M. 2001. Textualizing the law. Forensic Linguistics 8(2). 73–92.10.1558/sll.2001.8.2.73Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, D. & Sperber D. 2004. Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), Blackwell’s handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwells. http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/Relevance%20Theory%20Oriented/Sperber%20&%20Wilson%20-%20RT%20Revisited.pdf (accessed 2 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-1-23
Published in Print: 2016-3-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction: Hidden meanings in legal discourse
  3. Comparing the incomparable and legal discourse
  4. Two assumptions in legal discourse: To answer for self and to tell the truth
  5. Le sens caché: Refoulement et impensé dans le discours de la loi sémiotique des significations cachées du discours juridique
  6. Multiple historical and social layers of interpretation of marital rape in England
  7. Revisiting judgment translation in Hong Kong
  8. Exemption and exegesis: Judicial interpretation of exemption clauses in England, Australia, and India
  9. Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency
  10. The consequences and effects of language transformations in legal discourse
  11. Exploring identities in police interrogations
  12. Rights, responsibilities, and resistance: Legal discourse and intervention legislation in the Northern Territory in Australia
  13. An exploration of the semantic domain of legal language
  14. The hidden meanings in the case law of the European Court for Human Rights
  15. Crimes of the sign: Politics and performatives in the Treason Trials of 1794
  16. Showing what “marriage” is: Law’s civilizing sign
  17. A sociosemiotic approach to the legal dispute over the crime of whoring with an underage girl in China
  18. Uncovering hidden meanings in legal discourse on the elderly: A semioethical perspective
  19. Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse
  20. Hidden meanings of the words “religion” and “religious” in legal discourse
  21. Hidden cultures in law: Metaphor and translation in legal discourse
  22. Negotiating language status in multilingual jurisdictions: Rhetoric and reality
  23. Burying attitudes in words: Linguistic realization of the shift of judges’ court conciliation style
Downloaded on 25.2.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2016-0005/html
Scroll to top button