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

International Law, Pragmatics and the Distinction between Conceptual and Procedural Meaning


Using examples from international law, the authors demonstrate the usefulness of pragmatics in studying legal interpretation. In order to do this, they draw on Relevance Theory as a major theory in modern pragmatics. In pragmatics, there is an ongoing debate on the distinction between conceptual and procedural meaning. The paper unpacks this debate and shows how it can be employed to better explain interpretive processes in international law. Procedural meaning occurs in, among others areas, connectives such as “and” and “or”. These connectives frequently appear in the provisions of international treaties. Examples of substantive and procedural norms in international treaties illustrate how procedural meaning plays a central role in interpretation. The article also reveals how interpreters of law are generally unaware of the influence of procedural meaning on their interpretive decisions.

Cite as: Smolka & Pirker, JLL 7 (2018), 117–141, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2018.117

صندلی اداری سرور مجازی ایران Decentralized Exchange


international law, legal interpretation, linguistics, pragmatics, Relevance Theory, conceptual meaning, procedural meaning



  1. Aloni, Maria (2016). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Disjunction, sections 3, 6 and 7. Available at
  2. Assimakopoulos, Stavros (2015). Motivating the procedural analysis of logical connectives. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 32, 59–70. Available from
  3. Baron-Cohen, Simon (1995). Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  4. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
  5. Blakemore, Diane (1992). Understanding Utterances: Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  6. Blakemore, Diane (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning – The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Blakemore, Diane & Carston, Robyn (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua, 115, 569–589. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.016.
  8. Börjesson, Kristin (2014). The Semantics-Pragmatics Controversy. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
  9. Busse, Dietrich (1992). Recht als Text : Linguistische Untersuchungen zur Arbeit mit Sprache in einer gesellschaftlichen Institution. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
  10. Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. London: Blackwell.
  11. Carston, Robyn (2006). Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction. In Horn & Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 633–656). Malden: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470756959.ch28.
  12. Carston, Robyn (2013). Legal Texts and Canons of Construction: A View from Current Pragmatic Theory. In Freeman & Smith (Eds.), Law and Language (pp. 8–33). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0010.
  13. Carston, Robyn (2016). The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning. Lingua, 175–176, 154–166. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010.
  14. Chevallier, Coralie, Noveck, Ira, Nazir, Tatjana, Bott, Lewis, Lanzetti, Valentina & Sperber, Dan (2008). Making Disjunctions Exclusive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(11), 1741–1760. DOI: 10.1080/17470210701712960.
  15. Clark, Billy (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Cummings, Louise (2005). Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  17. Curcó, Carmen (2011). On the Status of Procedural Meaning in Natural Language. In Escandell-Vidal et al. (Eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (pp. 33–54). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI: 10.1163/9780857240941_003.
  18. De Saussure, Louis (2007). Procedural pragmatics and the study of discourse. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 139–159. DOI: 10.1075/pc.15.1.10sau.
  19. Dennett, Daniel (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  20. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria & Leonetti, Manuel (2011). On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In Escandell-Vidal et al. (Eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (pp. 81–102). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI: 10.1163/9780857240941_005.
  21. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel & Ahern, Aoife (2011). Introduction: Procedural Meaning. In Escandell-Vidal et al. (Eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (pp. xvii-xlv). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI: 10.1163/9780857240941_001.
  22. Felder, Ekkehard, Müller, Marcus & Vogel, Friedemann (Eds.). (2012). Korpuspragmatik. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110269574.
  23. Foster-Cohen, Susan (2004). Relevance Theory, Action Theory and second language communication strategies. Second Language Research, 20(3), 289–302. DOI: 10.1191/0267658304sr242oa.
  24. Fraser, Bruce (2006). On the conceptual/procedural distinction. Style, 40(1–2), 24–32. Available at
  25. Grice, Herbert Paul (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole & Morgan (Eds.), Syntacs and Semantics 3: Pragmatics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
  26. Gvura, Avi (2016). The need for the disjunction phrases in the legal contract. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(2), 319–343. DOI: 10.1515/ijld-2016-0012.
  27. Hussein, Miri (2008). The truth-conditional/non-truth-conditional and conceptual/procedural distinctions revisited. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 61–80.
  28. Karttunen, Lauri (1974). Presupposition and Linguistic Context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1–3), 181–194. DOI: 10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181.
  29. Karttunen, Lauri & Peters, Stanley (1979). Conventional Implicature. In Choon-Kyu & Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Presupposition (pp. 1–56). New York/San Francisco: Academic Press.
  30. Mauri, Caterina & van der Auwera, Johan (2012). Connectives. In Keith & Jaszczolt (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 347–402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Moeschler, Jacques (2002). Connecteurs, encodage conceptuel et encodage procédural. Cahiers de linguistique française 24 / 2002, 24, 265–292. Available at
  32. Moeschler, Jacques (2009). Pragmatics, Propositional and Non-Propositional Effects. Can a Theory of Utterance Interpretation Account for Emotions in Verbal Communication? Social Science Information, 48(3), 447–463. DOI: 10.1177/0539018409106200.
  33. Moeschler, Jacques (2016). Where is procedural meaning located? Evidence from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua, 175–176, 122–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.006.
  34. Moeschler, Jacques & Auchlin, Antoine (2009). Introduction à la linguistique contemporaine (3 ed.). Paris: Armand Colin.
  35. Müller, Friedrich (1994). Strukturierende Rechtslehre (2 ed.). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
  36. Pirker, Benedikt & Smolka, Jennifer (2017). Making Interpretation More Explicit: International Law and Pragmatics. Nordic Journal of International Law, 86(2), 228–266. DOI: 10.1163/15718107-08602004.
  37. Reboul, Anne & Moeschler, Jacques (1998). La Pragmatique aujourd'hui. Une nouvelle science de la communication. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
  38. Rock, Irvin (1983). The Logic of Perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  39. Schabas, William (2015). The European Convention on Human Rights – A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  40. Simons, Mandy (2005). Semantics and Pragmatics in the Interpretation of or. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 205–222. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v15i0.2929.
  41. Smolka, Jennifer & Pirker, Benedikt (2016). International Law and Pragmatics – An Account of Interpretation in International Law. International Journal of Language & Law, 5, 1–40. DOI: 10.14762/ jll.2016.001.
  42. Sperber, Dan & Origgi, Gloria (2012). A pragmatic perspective on the evolution of language. In Wilson & Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 331–338). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Stalnaker, Robert (1974). Pragmatic Presuppositions. Context and Content, 47–62.
  44. Venzke, Ingo (2012). How Interpretation Makes International Law – On Semantic Change and Normative Twists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Vogel, Friedemann (2015). Zwischen Willkür, Konvention und Automaten – Die interdisziplinäre Suche nach Bedeutungen in Recht und Gesetz. In Vogel (Ed.), Zugänge zur Rechtssemantik – Interdisziplinäre Ansätze im Zeitalter der Mediatisierung (pp. 3–17). Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/ 9783110348941-002.
  46. von Achenbach, Jelena (2014). Demokratische Gesetzgebung in der Europäischen Union. Heidelberg: Springer.
  47. Walaszewska, Ewa (2015). Relevance-Theoretic Lexical Pragmatics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  48. Wilson, Deirdre (2003). Relevance Theory and Lexical Pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 273–291. Available at
  49. Wilson, Deirdre (2011). The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future. In Escandell-Vidal et al. (Eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (pp. 3–31). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI: 10.1163/9780857240941_002.
  50. Wilson, Deirdre (2012). Modality and the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction. In Wałaszewska & Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance Theory: More than Understanding (pp. 23–44). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  51. Wilson, Deirdre (2017). Relevance Theory. In Huang (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.25.
  52. Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan (1993). Linguistic Form and Relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25. DOI: 10.1016/ 0024-3841(93)90058-5.
  53. Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan (2006). Relevance Theory. In Horn & Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Malden: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470756959.ch27.
  54. Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan (2012). Linguistic Form and Relevance. In Wilson & Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 149–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9781139028370.010.
  55. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona (2013). Speech actions in legal contexts. In Sbisà & Turner (Eds.), Pragmatics of Speech Actions (pp. 613–658). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110214383.613.
  56. Zufferey, Sandrine & Moeschler, Jacques (2012). Initiation à l'étude du sens. Auxerre: Sciences Humaines Éditions.
فروشگاه اینترنتی صندلی اداری