Legal Techniques and Logic

For 03 February 2017 Lecture:

I. Three functions of Language:

Informative
Expressive
Directive
Ceremonial
Performative

II. Discourse serving multiple functions

Effective communication demands certain combination
of functions
For example, a naked command may be far less
effective in certain situations. e.g. Between two equals,
between an attorney and the judge.
o In these cases, the speaker or writer may cause
action by:
Evoke appropriate attitude
Communicate relevant information.

III. Forms of Discourse

The form a language takes is not equivalent to its
function. To find out the actual function of a certain
passage, the following should be considered:
o The context of the passage
o It is also important to distinguish between
proposition that a sentence formulates and some
fact about the speaker for which the utterance of
that sentence is evidence.
o It may also happen that people make statements
that are ostensibly about their beliefs, not for the
sake of giving information about themselves, but
simply as a way of saying something else.

IV. Emotive Words

For the sentence to formulate a proposition, its words
must have literal or cognitive meaning, referring to
objects or events and their attributes or relations. When
it expresses an attitude or feeling, however, some of its
words may also have an emotional suggestiveness or
impact.
A word or phrase can have both a literal meaning and
an emotional impact.

I am firm; you are obstinate; he is a pig-headed fool

 I am righteously indignant; you are annoyed; he is
making a fuss about nothing

I have reconsidered it; you have changed your mind; he

has gone back on his word

V. Kinds of Agreement and Disagreement

Disagreement in Belief
o Disagreement as to whether or not something has
happened.
o Can be resolved by ascertaining facts.
Disagreement in Attitude
o Parties may agree that an event has actually
occurred, thus agreeing in belief, and yet they
may strongly divergent or even opposite attitudes
towards it
o What may be regarded as the facts of the case is
not the issue.
o To resolve this type of disagreement, it may be
fruitful to consider what implications or
consequences are entailed by the action in
question and what would have been entailed by
this or that alternative course of action.
When two parties appear to agree or disagree and
formulate their divergent views in statements that are
logically consistent with each other, both being
perhaps, literally true, it would be a mistake to say that
the parties do not really disagree, or that their
disagreement is merely verbal. They are not merely
saying the same thing in different words. They may,
of course, be using their words to affirm what is literally
the same fact, but they may also be using their words
to express conflicting attitudes towards that fact.

VI. Emotively Neutral Language

If our purpose is to communicate information, and if
we wish to avoid being misunderstood, we should use
language that has the least emotive impact.
Emotive language is not in itself bad, but when it is
information we are after, we shall do well to choose
words whose emotive meanings do not distract and
hinder us from dealing effectively with what they
describe.