Vol. 13 (2024)
Precedent in EU Law: The Linguistic Aspect

Special Issues

Linguistic Precedent as a Form of Linguistic Replication

Published 15.07.2024

  • Aleksandar Trklja

Abstract

This paper examines the interrelation of linguistic precedent and legal precedent, employing the lens of formulaic language as a bridge between these two domains. The first part of the paper is concerned with the argument that linguistic precedent is a form of linguistic replication. This argument is based on the premises that a) language repetition is a form of linguistic replication, b) that language use is a form of repetition and c) that linguistic precedent is a form of language use. The evidence for these premises is provided using insights and findings from Dawkins’ meme theory, linguistics, history of law and cognitive science. After that I explore the semantic aspects of linguistic precedent and I propose that linguistic precedent is a form of linguistic replication by means of which two or more situations are represented as being the same. After discussing the theoretical foundations of the notion of linguistic precedent I suggest that linguistic precedent indicates to the reader that there are some more general principles and rules that underlie legal reasoning. I further propose that it is on the basis of such generalized casuistic relations between linguistically chained cases or case-based reasoning, that legal precedent emerges.

Cite as: Trklja, JLL 13 (2024), 97–117, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2024.097

Keywords

linguistic precedent, linguistic replication, formulaicity, language use, casuistic relation

PDF

References

  1. Alexander, Elizabeth S. (2006). Transmitting Mishnah: The Shaping Influence of Oral Tradition. Cambridge: University Press.
  2. Altmann, Gerry & Steedman, Mark (1988). Interaction with Context During Human Sentence Processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191–238. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0.
  3. Armstrong, David M. (1997). A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: University Press.
  4. Baayen, R. Harald (2001). Word Frequency Distributions. Dordrecht: Springer.
  5. Barwise, Jon & Perry, John (1981). Situations and Attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(11), 668–691. DOI: 10.2307/2026578.
  6. Bertolotti, Tommaso & Magnani, Lorenzo (2017). Theoretical Considerations on Cognitive Niche Construction. Synthese, 194, 4757–4779. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-016-1165-2.
  7. Biber, Douglas (2009). A Corpus-driven Approach to Formulaic Language in English: Multi-word Patterns in Speech and Writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311. DOI: 10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib.
  8. Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan & Cortes, Viviana (2004). If You Look at…: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. DOI: 10.1093/applin/25.3.371.
  9. Blevins, James P. & Blevins, Juliette (2009). Introduction: Analogy in Grammar. In Blevins & Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition (pp. 1–12). Oxford: University Press.
  10. Bock, J. Kathryn (1986). Syntactic Persistence in Language Production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6.
  11. Bottéro, Jean (1995). Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Chicago: University Press.
  12. Bottéro, Jean (1992). Naissance de Dieu: la Bible et l’historien. Paris: Gallimard.
  13. Brenner, Susan W. (1992). Precedent Inflation. New Brunswick & New York: Transaction.
  14. Bybee, Joan (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: University Press.
  15. Christiansen, Morten H. & Chater, Nick (2016). Creating Language: Integrating Evolution, Acquisition, and Processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  16. Clark, Andy (2005). Word, Niche and Super-niche: How Language Makes Minds Matter More. THEORIA, 20(3), 255–268. DOI: 10.1387/theoria.561.
  17. Conklin, Kathy & Schmitt, Norbert (2012). The Processing of Formulaic Language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61. DOI: 10.1017/S0267190512000074.
  18. Dawkins, Richard (1982). The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene. Oxford: University Press.
  19. Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: University Press.
  20. Dennett, Daniel C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston & New York: Little Brown.
  21. Dennett, Daniel C. (2017). From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds. New York: Norton & Company.
  22. Devlin, Keith (2006). Situation Theory and Situation Semantics. Handbook of the History of Logic, 7, 601–664. DOI: 10.1016/S1874-5857(06)80034-8.
  23. Devlin, Keith J. (1995). Logic and Information. Cambridge: University Press.
  24. Elster, Jon (2000). Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge: University Press.
  25. Erman, Britt & Warren, Beatrice (2000). The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle. Text & Talk, 20(1), 29–62. DOI: 10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29.
  26. Frost, Ram, Armstrong, Blair C. & Christiansen, Morten H. (2019). Statistical Learning Research: A Critical Review and Possible New Directions. Psychological Bulletin, 145(12), 1128–1153. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000210.
  27. Garner, Bryan A. (Ed.) (2004). Black’s Law Dictionary. 8th Edition. St. Paul: West Group.
  28. Gilchrist, Amanda L. (2015). How Should We Measure Chunks? A Continuing Issue in Chunking Research and a Way Forward. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01456.
  29. Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław (2011). Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English: A Corpus-based Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  30. Grabowski, Łukasz (2015). Keywords and Lexical Bundles Within English Pharmaceutical Discourse: A Corpus-driven Description. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 23–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.004.
  31. Gruszka, Aleksandra, Matthews, Gerald & Szymura, Blazej (2010). Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition: Attention, Memory, and Executive Control. New York: Springer.
  32. Hoey, Michael (2004). Lexical Priming and the Properties of Text. In Partington (Ed.), Corpora and Discourse (pp. 385–412). Bern: Peter Lang.
  33. Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill (2000). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  34. Hutchison, Keith A., Balota, David A., Neely, James H., Cortese, Michael J., Cohen-Shikora, Emily R., Tse, Chi-Shing, Yap, Melvin J., Bengson, Jesse J., Niemeyer, Dale & Buchanan, Erin (2013). The Semantic Priming Project. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1099–1114. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0304-z.
  35. Leech, Geoffrey (1992). 100 Million Words of English: The British National Corpus (BNC). Second Language Research, 28(1), 1–13.
  36. Lord, Albert B. (1991). Epic Singers and Oral Tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  37. Marcus, Gary F. (2003). The Algebraic Mind: Integrating Connectionism and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  38. McAuliffe, Karen (2013). Precedent at the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Linguistic Aspect. Current Legal Issues, 15, 483–493. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0297.
  39. McAuliffe, Karen, Muntean, Liana, Mattioli, Virginia (2022). Through the Lens of Language: Uncovering the Collaborative Nature of Advocates General’s Opinions. In Madsen (Ed.), Researching the European Court of Justice: Methodological Shifts and Law’s Embeddedness (pp. 158–186). Cambridge: University Press.
  40. McAuliffe, Karen & Trklja, Aleksandar (2018). Superdiversity and the Relationship Between Law, Language and Translation in a Supranational Legal Order. In Creese & Blackledge (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity (pp. 426–441). London: Routledge.
  41. McCauley, Stewart M. & Christiansen, Morten H. (2017). Computational Investigations of Multiword Chunks in Language Learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 637–652.
  42. McDowell, John (1998). Review: Précis of Mind and World. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58(2), 365–368.
  43. McGlynn, Michael (2009). Orality in the Old Icelandic Grágás: Legal Formulae in the Assembly Procedures Section. Neophilologus, 93(3), 521–536. DOI: 10.1007/s11061-009-9147-y.
  44. Miller, George A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. DOI: 10.1037/h0043158.
  45. Pawley, Andrew & Syder, Frances H. (1983). Natural Selection in Syntax: Notes on Adaptive Variation and Change in Vernacular and Literary Grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 7(5), 551–579. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(83)90081-4.
  46. Pérez-Llantada, Carmen (2014). Formulaic Language in L1 and L2 Expert Academic Writing: Convergent and Divergent Usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.01.002.
  47. Récanati, François (2003). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: University Press.
  48. Ribeiro, Henrique J. (2014). Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy. Cham: Springer.
  49. Russell, Bertrand (1921). Words and Meaning. The Analysis of the Mind. London: Allen & Unwin.
  50. Schmitt, Norbert & Carter, Ronald (2004). Formulaic Sequences in Action: An Introduction. In Schmitt & Carter (Eds.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  51. Schvaneveldt, Roger W. & Meyer, David E. (1973). Retrieval and Comparison Processes in Semantic Memory. In Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and Performance IV (pp. 395–409). New York: Academic Press.
  52. Sinclair, John (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: University Press.
  53. Soames, Scott (2010). Philosophy of Language. Princeton: University Press.
  54. Squire, Larry R. & Dede, Adam J. O. (2015). Conscious and Unconscious Memory Systems. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 7(3). DOI: 10.1101%2Fcshperspect.a021667.
  55. Squire, Larry R. & Zola-Morgan, Stuart (1991). The Medial Temporal Lobe Memory System. Science, 253(5026), 1380–1386.
  56. Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  57. Tiersma, Peter. The Nature of Legal Language. Available at: languageandlaw.org/NATURE.HTM (accessed 12 November 2023).
  58. Trklja, Aleksandar (2018). A Corpus Investigation of Formulaicity and Hybridity in Legal Language: A Case of EU Case Law Texts. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (Eds.), Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings: A Corpus-Based Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 89–108). London: Routledge.
  59. Trklja, Aleksandar & McAuliffe, Karen (2019). Formulaic Metadiscursive Signalling Devices in Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 26(1), 21–55. DOI: 10.1558/ijsll.36920.
  60. Waismann, Friedrich (1968). How I See Philosophy, ed. Rom Harré. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  61. Williams, George C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton: University Press.
  62. Wray, Alison (2013). Formulaic Language. Language Teaching, 46(3), 316–334. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444813000013.
  63. Zipf, George K. (1935). The Psychobiology of Language: An Introduction to Philology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  64. Zipf, George K. (1949). Human Behavior and The Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.