The article is a continuation of the author's contribution Concept vs. Conception of Justice in Analytic Philosophy of Law (Filozofia 2022/4). It focuses on explaining polysemy as a kind of linguistic indeterminacy that constitutes one of the main reasons why courts come to interpret legal texts. The study discusses polysemy from the perspective of the theory of language used by A Marmor in his theory of interpretation. The author shows the limits of semantic analysis in law and the role of normative presuppositions, which influence the final outcome of judicial decision-making not only in terms of content, but are also important for the choice of formal means that are applied in the context of this decision-making.
The author analyzes the difference between a concept and its different conceptions by using the example of the difference between the concept and conceptions of justice in analytic philosophy in the context of constitutional interpretation. The difference between the concept and distinct conceptions of the concept appears within a section of constitutional interpretation theory illustrating the change in the meaning of moral terms that denote constitutional rights and liberties, principles and values. The author argues that the distinction between a concept and its distinct conceptions may generate more controversy than it resolves in constitutional interpretation theory and should therefore be rejected. This distinction, however, points to one significant linguistic phenomenon that clearly deserves attention, and that is polysemy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.