Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 6 (2017)
The Fabric of Language and Law

Forum: Comments and Reviews

The Fabric of Language and Law. Towards an International Research Network for Computer Assisted Legal Linguistics (CAL²)

https://doi.org/10.14762/jll.2017.101

Published 07.09.2017

  • Hanjo Hamann
    • ,
  • Friedemann Vogel

Abstract

Law and language can be described as complex institutions with emergent properties, like intricate fabrics woven from single-colored fibers. This metaphor suggests to think of legal language in terms of “patterns”: Recurrent motifs in the fabric that the individual language user may not (and in most cases cannot) be aware of, though they explain the development of language more coherently than any narrative based on a priori rules. This perspective corresponds with the recent trend towards computer linguistics using “text as data”. To discuss how these approaches might impact research on the language of law, the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities hosted the first international conference on “The Fabric of Language and Law” from the perspective of legal corpus linguistics. Selected papers presented at this meeting in March 2016 were subsequently peer-reviewed and published in an eponymous volume of the International Journal of Language & Law (JLL), edited by the present authors as convenors of the conference. This special issue introduction elaborates on the topic of this meeting, summarizes its contributions, and contextualises the publications that resulted from it. The authors hope that this exchange, which has meanwhile been continued across the Atlantic, may help to establish an international network for research on Computer Assisted Legal Linguistics (CAL2).

Cite as: Hamann & Vogel, JLL 6 (2017), 101–109, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2017.101

 

صندلی اداری سرور مجازی ایران Decentralized Exchange

Keywords

corpus, computer linguistics, semantics, law and language, legal linguistics, big data, CAL²

PDF

References

  1. Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1992). Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual Fields. In Lehrer & Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts. New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
  3. Breeze, Ruth (2015). Teaching the Vocabulary of Legal Documents: A Corpus-Driven Approach. Journal of English for Specific Purposes at Tertiary Level (ESP Today), 3(1), 44–63. Available at esptodayjournal.org/ pdf/current_issue/2015/3. RUTH BREEZE - full text.pdf.
  4. Breeze, Ruth (2017). Corpora and Computation in Teaching Law and Language. International Journal of Language & Law, 6, 1–17. DOI: 10.14762/jll.2017.001.
  5. Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E. (1993). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, Levine & Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  6. Feilke, Helmuth (1989). Funktionen verbaler Stereotype für die alltagssprachliche Wissensorganisation. In Knobloch (Ed.), Kognition und Kommunikation. Beiträge zur Psychologie der Zeichenverwendung (pp. 71–84). Münster: Nodus.
  7. Felder, Ekkehard, Müller, Marcus & Vogel, Friedemann (2010). Das Heidelberger Korpus – Gesellschaftliche Konflikte im Spiegel der Sprache. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik (ZGL), 38, 314–319.
  8. Fillmore, Charles J. (1992). ‘Corpus linguistics’ vs. ‘Computer-aided armchair linguistics’. In Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 (pp. 35–60). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  9. Glaser, Barney G., Strauss, Anselm L. & Paul, Axel T. (1967/2008). Grounded Theory: Strategien qualitativer Forschung (German 2nd ed. 2008). Bern: Huber.
  10. Goffman, Erving (1983). The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.
  11. Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Hafner, Christoph A. & Candlin, Christopher N. (2007). Corpus Tools as an Affordance to Learning in Professional Legal Education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 303–318. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap. 2007.09.005.
  13. Hamann, Hanjo (2017). Strukturierende Rechtslehre als juristische Sprachtheorie. In Felder & Vogel (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache im Recht (pp. 175–186). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110296198-009.
  14. Hamann, Hanjo & Vogel, Friedemann (2017). Die kritische Masse. Aspekte einer quantitativ orientierten Hermeneutik am Beispiel der computergestützten Rechtslinguistik. In Schweiker et al. (Ed.), Messen und Verstehen in der Wissenschaft. Interdisziplinäre Ansätze (pp. 81–95). Wiesbaden: J.B. Metzler (Springer imprint). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-18354-7_7.
  15. Hamann, Hanjo & Vogel, Friedemann (forthcoming 2017). Evidence-Based Jurisprudence meets Legal Linguistics. Unlikely Blends Made in Germany. Brigham Young University Law Review, 43.
  16. Heine, Heinrich (1851/1905). Hebrew Melodies. Third Book, Jehuda Ben Halevy (Fragment). Translated by Armour (Ed.), The Works of Heinrich Heine XII: Romancero Book III. London: William Heinemann. Available at archive.org/details/worksofheinrichh12hein.
  17. Keller, Rudi (1990): Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen: Francke. [English version: On Language Change. The Invisible Hand in Language 1994; German 4th ed. 2014].
  18. Kudlich, Hans & Christensen, Ralph (2009). Die Methodik des BGH in Strafsachen. Köln: Heymanns.
  19. Lederer, Richard (1990). Crazy English: the Ultimate Joy Ride Through Our Language. New York: Pocket Books. Cited from excerpt at academic.luzerne.edu/shousenick/101--EXAMPLE_EnglishCrazyLan guage_Lederer.doc.
  20. Lee, Thomas R. & Mouritsen, Stephen C. (forthcoming 2017). Judging Ordinary Meaning. Yale Law Journal, 126.
  21. Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (Eds.) (2008). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  22. Lukas, Christoph (2017). Korpuslinguistik und Recht. Bericht über die Konferenz „The Fabric of Law and Language“ der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften vom 18. und 19. März 2016. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 103(1), 138–145. Available at ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fsv/arsp/ 2017/00000103/00000001/art00007.
  23. Marín, María José (2014). A Proposal to Exploit Legal Term Repertoires Extracted Automatically from a Legal English Corpus. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 49, 53–72. Available at miscel aneajournal.net/index.php/misc/article/view/177.
  24. Marín, María José (2017). Legalese as Seen Through the Lens of Corpus Linguistics. An Introduction to Software Tools for Terminological Analysis. International Journal of Language & Law, 6, 18–45. DOI: 10.14762/jll.2017.018.
  25. Marín, María José & Rea Rizzo, Camino (2012). Structure and Design of the British Law Report Corpus (BLRC): A Legal Corpus of Judicial Decisions from the UK. Journal of English Studies, 10, 131–145. Available at publicaciones.unirioja.es/ojs/index.php/jes/article/view/184/164.
  26. McClurg, Andrew Jay (2011). Famous Wacky Law Exposed as Not-So-Wacky. McClurg’s Legal Humor: Legal Mythbusters, 25 Nov. Retrieved from lawhaha.com/famous.
  27. McEnery, Tony & Wilson, Andrew (1997). Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  28. Minsky, Marvin (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston & Horn (Eds.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  29. Morlok, Martin (2004). Der Text hinter dem Text. Intertextualität im Recht. In Blankenagel, Pernice & Kotzur (Eds.), Verfassung im Diskurs der Welt. Liber Amicorum für Peter Häberle zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (pp. 93–136). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
  30. Morlok, Martin (2015). Intertextualität und Hypertextualität im Recht. In Vogel (Ed.), Zugänge zur Rechtssemantik (pp. 69–90). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  31. Mouritsen, Stephen C. (2010). The Dictionary Is Not a Fortress: Definitional fallacies and a corpus-based approach to plain meaning. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2010, 1915–1978. Available at digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2010/iss5/10.
  32. Mouritsen, Stephen C. (2011). Hard Cases and Hard Data: Assessing corpus linguistics as an empirical path to plain meaning. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 13, 156–205. Available at stlr.org/ cite.cgi?volume=13&article=4.
  33. Mouritsen, Stephen C. (2017). Corpus Linguistics in Legal Interpretation. An Evolving Interpretative Framework. International Journal of Language & Law, 6, 67–89. DOI: 10.14762/jll.2017.067.
  34. Pinker, Steven (1999). Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books.
  35. Sachs, Stephen E. (forthcoming 2017). Originalism Without Text. Yale Law Journal, 127.
  36. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI: 10.2307/412243.
  37. Schank, Roger C. & Abelson, Robert P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  38. Solan, Lawrence M. (2016). Can Corpus Linguistics Help Make Originalism Scientific? Yale Law Journal Forum, 126, 57–64. Available at yalelawjournal.org/forum/can-corpus-linguistics-help-make-original ism-scientific.
  39. Solan, Lawrence M. (2017a), Linguistic knowledge and legal interpretation – what goes right, what goes wrong. In Slocum (Ed.), The Nature of Legal Interpretation: What Jurists Can Learn about Legal Interpretation from Linguistics and Philosophy (pp. 66–87). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  40. Solan, Lawrence M. (2017b). Patterns in Language and Law. International Journal of Language & Law, 6, 46–66. DOI: 10.14762/jll.2017.046.
  41. Solan, Lawrence M. & Gales, Tammy (2016). Finding ordinary meaning in law: The judge, the dictionary or the corpus. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(2), 253–276. DOI: 10.1515/ijld-2016-0016.
  42. Solan, Lawrence M. & Gales, Tammy (forthcoming 2017). Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation. Brigham Young University Law Review, 43.
  43. Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2008). Konstruktionsgrammatik und Korpuslinguistik. In Fischer, Stefanowitsch & Fischer-Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik I. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (2nd ed.) (pp. 151–175). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
  44. Steyer, Kathrin (2013). Usuelle Wortverbindungen: Zentrale Muster des Sprachgebrauchs aus korpusanalytischer Sicht. Tübingen: Narr.
  45. Teubert, Wolfgang (2004). Language and corpus linguistics. In Halliday (Ed.), Lexicology and corpus linguistics. An introduction (pp. 73–112). London: Continuum Books.
  46. Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
  47. Vogel, Friedemann (2012a). Das Recht im Text: Rechtssprachlicher Usus in korpuslinguistischer Perspektive. In Felder, Müller & Vogel (Eds.), Korpuspragmatik: Thematische Korpora als Basis diskurslinguistischer Analysen (pp. 314–353). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  48. Vogel, Friedemann (2012b). Linguistik rechtlicher Normgenese. Theorie der Rechtsnormdiskursivität am Beispiel der Online-Durchsuchung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  49. Vogel, Friedemann (Ed.) (2015). Zugänge zur Rechtssemantik: Interdisziplinäre Ansätze im Zeitalter der Mediatisierung zwischen Introspektion und Automaten. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  50. Vogel, Friedemann, Hamann, Hanjo & Gauer, Isabelle (2017). Computer-Assisted Legal Linguistics. Corpus Analysis as a New Tool for Legal Studies, Law & Social Inquiry, 42, early view. DOI: 10.1111/lsi.12305.
  51. Vogel, Friedemann; Hamann, Hanjo; Stein, Dieter; Abegg, Andreas; Biel, Łucja & Solan, Lawrence (2016). Begin at the Beginning: Lawyers and Linguists Together in Wonderland. The Winnower, 3, 4919. DOI: 10.15200/winn.148184.43176.
فروشگاه اینترنتی صندلی اداری