Implicatures in Law
when the law says it without saying it
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65674/rev-trf3.v36i162.751Keywords:
implicatures, speaker meaning, philosophy of language, context, legal interpretationAbstract
This article investigates the applicability of implicatures – what is said without saying – in Law. The objective is to answer whether implicatures are compatible with the legal system, particularly in the interpretation of normative texts. To this end, it employs theoretical-bibliographical research of a qualitative nature. First, it examines the meaning and function of implicatures in ordinary conversational contexts, distinguishing them from related concepts. Next, analyzes the obstacles to their use in legal language, such as the absence of an individual legislator with a single intention and the impossibility of immediately cancelling an implicit meaning, proposing a criterion for their admission based on contextual dependence. The paper formulates two conclusions: (i) particularized implicatures, which depend on a specific and individual context to be understood, are incompatible with the legal system as they violate legal certainty, the separation of powers, and legality; and (ii) generalized conversational implicatures are not only admissible but are binding in the interpretation of normative texts, with no difference in hierarchy or normative effect between explicit and implicit meanings.
References
ÁVILA, Humberto. Teoria da indeterminação no Direito: entre a indeterminação aparente e a determinação latente. São Paulo: Malheiros/Juspodivm, 2022.
ÁVILA, Humberto. Teoria da segurança jurídica. 4. ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2016.
BACH, Kent. Meaning. In: NADEL, Lynn (Org.). Encyclopedia of cognitive science. v. 2. Londres: NPG, 2003, p. 1.047-1.055.
BACH, Kent. Meaning and communication. In: RUSSELL, Gilian; FARA, Delia Graff (Orgs.). The routledge companion to philosophy of language. Londres/Nova York: Routledge, 2012a, p. 79-90.
BACH, Kent. Saying, meaning, and implicating. In: ALLAN, Keith; JASZCZOLT, Kasia (Orgs.). The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012b, p. 47-67.
BACH, Kent. Semantic slack: what is said and more. In: TSOHATZIDIS, Savas L. (ed.). Foundations of speech act theory. Londres: Routledge, 1994, p. 267-291.
BACH, Kent. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy. v. 22, n. 4, 1999, p. 327-366.
BIANCHI, Claudia. What did you (legally) say? Cooperative and strategic interactions. In: CAPONE, Alessandro; POGGI, Francesca (ed.). Pragmatics and Law: philosophical perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer, 2016, p. 185-200.
CARSTON, Robyn. Legal texts and canons of construction: a view from current pragmatic theory. Law and language. Current legal issues, v. 15, 2011, p. 8-33
DAHLMAN, Roberta C. Entailment, pressuposition, implicature. In: STALMASCZYK, Piotr (Org.). The Cambridge handbook of the philosophy of language. Cambridge/Nova York: Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 319-334.
GRICE, H. Paul. Logic and conversation. In: Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989, p. 22-40.
HORN, Laurence R. Implicature. In: HORN, Laurence R.; WARD, Gregory (Orgs.). The handbook of pragmatics. Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004, p. 3-28.
MARMOR, Andrei. The language of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
MARMOR, Andrei. The pragmatics of legal language. Ratio Juris, v. 21, n. 4, 2008, p. 423-452.
SHARDIMGALIEV, Marat. Implicatures in judicial opinions. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, v. 32, 2019, p. 391-415.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Fernando Mariath Rechia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting the academic text to the Journal of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (Revista do Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região), the authors declare to be the holders of the copyright, responding exclusively for any claims related to such rights; as well as guaranteeing the non-existence of any breach of academic ethics.
The authors retain the copyright and grant the Journal of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region the right of publication, without encumbrance and without limitations as to term, territory, or any other.
The concepts and opinions expressed in the signed works are the sole responsibility of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this Journal, nor of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region.
