Keywords
legal semantics
prototype theory
cognitive linguistics
EU legislation
How to Cite
Abstract
Prototype theory is a semantic theory according to which the membership of conceptual categories is based not on a list of criterial features, but rather on the similarity to the most representative member of the category. Consequently, conceptual categories may lack classical definitions and rigid boundaries. This article supports the claims, already made by other scholars working in the field, that prototype theory may greatly augment our understanding of legal (i.e. statutory, judicial) interpretation. Legal provisions are traditionally written as classical definitions, but they are rarely applied that way. Statutory concepts tend to be interpreted with a great deal of flexibility, using a wide array of extra-textual factors. This is especially true for the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has to deal with the challenges of the multilingual, supranational law of the European Union.
Funding
The article is a part of a research project
References
Bajčić, Martina. 2017. New Insights into the Semantics of Legal Concepts and the Legal Dictionary. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing.
Engberg, Jan. 2002. Legal Meaning Assumptions – What Are the Consequences for Legal Interpretation and Legal Translation. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 15 (4): 378-388.
Fallon, Richard H. 2015. The Meaning of Legal “Meaning” and Its Implications for Theories of Legal Interpretation. University of Chicago Law Review 82 (3): 1235-1308. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol82/iss3/3 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Fennelly, Nial. 1996. Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice. Fordham International Law Journal 20 (3): 656-679. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=ilj (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. https ://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Geerearts, Dirk. 2016 (1989). Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory. Diachronia 4, A53: 1–16.
Hamilton, Jonnette. 2002. Theories of Categorization: A Case Study of Cheques. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 17 (1): 115 – 138.
Hart, Herbert L.A. 1994 (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, Oliver W. Jr. 1882. The Common Law (1st ed.). London: Macmillan. Retrieved 15 July 2020 via Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2449/2449-h/2449-h.htm (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Klimek, Libor. 2015. European Arrest Warrant. Cham-Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London: Springer.
Kutscher, Hans. 1976. Methods of Interpretation as Seen by a Judge at the Court of Justice. Judicial and Academic Conference, 27-28 September 1976, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 5-51.
Lakoff, George. 1973. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (4): 458-508.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lenaerts, Koen, and José A. Gutirrez-Fons. 2013. To Say What the Law of the EU is: Methods of Interpretation and the European Court of Justice. EUI Working Paper AEL 2013. Available at: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/28339 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Łachacz, Olga, and Rafał Mańko. 2013. Multilingualism at the Court of Justice of the European Union: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, vol. 34 (47): 75-92.
Mellinkoff, David. 2004 (1963). The Language of the Law. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Osenga, Kristen. 2011. A Penguin’s Defence of the Doctrine of Equivalents: Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Patent Law. New York University Journal of Law & Liberty 6: 313-358.
Pacho Aljanti, Lucie. 2018. Multilingual EU Law: a New Way of Thinking. European Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 10: 5-46. http://hdl.handle.net/1814/59865 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Paluszek, Karolina. 2019. Komparatystyka językowa jako narzędzie interpretacyjne Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej. Warszawa: Diffin.
Paul, Jeremy. 2002. Changing the Subject: Cognitive Theory and the Teaching of Law. Brooklyn Law Review 67 (4): 987-1022.
Questionnaire on the CJEU’s judgments in relation to the independence of issuing judicial authorities and effective judicial protection (by Eurojust & European Judicial Agency). Available at: http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/Eurojust-framework/Pages/casework.aspx (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories. In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, ed. T. Moore, 111-144. New York: Academic Press.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104 (3): 192-233. Available at: https ://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of Categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, eds. Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd, 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rosch, Eleanor. 2011. “Slow lettuce”: Categories, Concepts, Fuzzy Sets, and Logical Deduction. In Concepts and Fuzzy Logic, eds. Radim Belohlavek and George J. Klir, 89-120. Cambridge-Oxford: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Šarčević, Susan. 2000. Legal Translation and Translation Theory: a Receiver-oriented Approach. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Legal-Translation-and-Translation-Theory-%3A-a-%C5%A0ar%C4%8Devi%C4%87/c266c61e8c8f3c89f519b473c1387c9703132d76 192 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
Šarčević, Susan. 2013. Multilingual Lawmaking and Legal (Un)Certainty in the European Union. International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse, vol. 3 (1): 1-29.
Smith, Michael R. 2011. Linguistic Hooks: Overcoming Adverse Cognitive Stock Structures in Statutory Interpretation. Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD 8 (1): 1-36.
Solan, Lawrence. 2010. The Language of Statutes. Laws and Their Interpretation. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Solan, Lawrence. 2018. The Interpretation of Legal Language. Annual Review of Linguistics vol. 4: 337-355.
Taylor, John R. 2003 (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van der Mei, Anne Pieter. 2017. The European Arrest Warrant System: Recent Developments in the Case Law of the Court of Justice. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2017, vol. 24 (6): 889-904.
Walshaw, Christopher. 2013. Interpretation is Understanding and Application: The Case for Concurrent Legal Interpretation. Statute Law Review vol. 34: 101-127.
Winter, Steven L. 2001. A Clearing in the Forest. Law, Live and Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil-Blackwell.
License
When submitting a paper the author agrees to the following publishing agreement and processing personal data.
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT, COPYRIGHT LICENSE, PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING CONSENT
This is a publication agreement and copyright license (“Agreement”) regarding a written manuscript currently submitted via Pressto platform
(“Article”) to be published in Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Journal”).
The parties to this Agreement are:
the Author or Authors of the submitted article (individually, or if more than one author, collectively, “Author”) and Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Publisher”), address al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, represented by its editor in chief Aleksandra Matulewska.
§1. LICENSE OF COPYRIGHT
a) The Author and the Publisher agree that the Author grants a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is incorporated herein by reference and is further specified at Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 copyright license in the Article to the general public.
b) The Author grants to the Publisher a royalty-free, worldwide nonexclusive license to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, translate and use the Article in any form, either separately or as part of a collective work, including but not limited to a nonexclusive license to publish the Article in an issue of the Journal, copy and distribute individual reprints of the Article, authorize reproduction of the entire Article in another publication, and authorize reproduction and distribution of the Article or an abstract thereof by means of computerized retrieval systems (such as Westlaw, Lexis and SSRN). The Author retains ownership of all rights under copyright in the Article, and all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author grants to the Publisher the power to assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer any and all licenses expressly granted to the Publisher under this Agreement.
d) Republication. The Author agrees to require that the Publisher be given credit as the original publisher in any republication of the Article authorized by the Author. If the Publisher authorizes any other party to republish the Article under the terms of paragraphs 1c and 1 of this Agreement, the Publisher shall require such party to ensure that the Author is credited as the Author.
§2. EDITING OF THE ARTICLE
a) The Author agrees that the Publisher may edit the Article as suitable for publication in the Journal. To the extent that the Publisher’s edits amount to copyrightable works of authorship, the Publisher hereby assigns all right, title, and interest in such edits to the Author.
§3. WARRANTIES
a) The Author represents and warrants that to the best of the Author’s knowledge the Article does not defame any person, does not invade the privacy of any person, and does not in any other manner infringe upon the rights of any person. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher against all such claims.
b) The Author represents and warrants that the Author has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant the licenses granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author represents and warrants that the Article furnished to the Publisher has not been published previously. For purposes of this paragraph, making a copy of the Article accessible over the Internet, including, but not limited to, posting the Article to a database accessible over the Internet, does not constitute prior publication so long as the as such copy indicates that the Article is not in final form, such as by designating such copy to be a “draft,” a “working paper,” or “work-in-progress”. The Author agrees to hold harmless the Publisher, its licensees and distributees, from any claim, action, or proceeding alleging facts that constitute a breach of any warranty enumerated in this paragraph.
§4. TERM
a) The agreement was concluded for an unspecified time.
§5. PAYMENT
a) The Author agrees and acknowledges that the Author will receive no payment from the Publisher for use of the Article or the licenses granted in this Agreement.
b) The Publisher agrees and acknowledges that the Publisher will not receive any payment from the Author for publication by the Publisher.
§6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
a) This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Author and the Publisher with respect to the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the Article, and each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements have been made by or on behalf of any party except those warranties and agreements embodied in this Agreement.
b) In all cases not regulated by this Agreement, legal provisions of Polish Copyright Act and Polish Civil Code shall apply.
c) Any disputes arising from the enforcement of obligations connected with this Agreement shall be resolved by a court competent for the headquarters of the Publisher.
d) Any amendments or additions to the Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorised representative of both parties, otherwise being ineffective.
e) This Agreement is signed electronically and the submission of the article via the PRESSto platform is considered as the conclusion of the Agreement by the Author and the Publisher.
f) Clause for consent to the processing of personal data - general
g) The Author shall give his or her consent to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of persons physical in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation) for the purpose and in connection with making publications available on the PRESSto scientific journals platform and DeGruyter platform, guaranteeing the security of services rendered, and improving them.
I HAVE READ AND AGREE FULLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The Author The Publisher