Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

PODOBY SÉMANTIKY A PRAGMATIKY VO FILOZOFII PRÁVA

100%
Neština M.
Organon F. medzinárodný časopis pre analytickú filozofiu
|
2013
|
vol. 20
|
issue suppl. 1
105 – 121
EN
This essay deals with the relationship between philosophy of law and philosophy of language. The author closely follows the discussion concerning the determination of the content of the law which has been remarked by current semantics and pragmatics in philosophy of language. According to a view that has considerable currency at present, philosophy of language and linguistics has a direct bearing on the content of the law. The general outlook of this view – the communicative-content theory of law (the communication theory) can be captured in the following way. Legal texts are linguistic texts, so the meaning or content of a legal text is an instance of linguistic meaning generally. It therefore stands to reason that, in order to understand the meaning of an authoritative legal text or utterance, such as a statute or regulation, we should look to our best theories about language and communication.
2

SÉMANTICKÉ A PRAGMATICKÉ OTÁZKY JAZYKA PRÁVNYCH PREDPISOV

100%
Neština M.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2012
|
vol. 67
|
issue 9
718 – 730
EN
The author argues that the distinction between semantic and pragmatic aspects of the language in the statutory instruments is critical to the theory of juristic interpretation. He tries to define the nature of the legal norm, expressed or communicated by the lawgiver by enacting the particular law. Two sorts of pragmatic processes as articulated by M. Zouhar in his book Meaning in context should be taken into account in interpreting the latter: the semantically relevant processes serving the elimination of semantic ambiguities and pragmatic processes participating in making law complete. The aim of the paper is to support the thesis that the elimination of semantic ambiguities means to determine the second layer of the meaning, i.e. the legal norm expressed by the normative utterance in the context of its use by the legislative body. By contrast, making law complete is based on inferring the third layer of meaning, i.e. an implicated legal norm.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.