ABSTRACT
This chapter presents two extracts that each look, in different ways, at aspects of judicial interpretation from the perspective of linguistics and cognitive science/psychology. The two extracts are two approaches to meaning and legal construction and relevance theory and legal interpretation. L. Solan identifies challenges in the availability of two different approaches to meaning to judges as they interpret statutory language. In particular, he draws attention to increased reliance on dictionaries in establishing 'ordinary meaning'. Without question, though, the biggest change in the search for word meaning is the almost obsessive attention courts now pay to dictionaries, using them as authority for ordinary meaning. Robyn Carston identifies convergence between interpretive heuristics as expressed in modern pragmatics and in long-established legal maxims. Partly through dialogue with Andrei Marmor, she goes on to consider how far relevance theory in particular might shed light on legal interpretation.
