Semiotics of Law

1. Definition

The expressions “Semiotics-of-law”, “Semiotics-in-law” and “Legal Semiotics” are employed interchangeably, although their meanings and interpretations differ. Broekman, Mootz and Pencak refer to legal semiotics as “the scientific approach that regards law as a system of signs and meanings” (2011, v), while Tiefenbrun describes semiotics of law as “a specialized study of sign systems underlying legal informational exchanges”, inspired by Sebeok’s basic definition of semiotics as “the exchange of any messages whatever and of the systems of signs which underlie them” (2010, 24).

Legal semiotics combines the science of semiotics and the law. It is viewed as a doctrine, a discipline, a sub-discipline, and a meta-discipline. Legal Semiotics comprises semiotics-of-law and semiotics-in-law. Semiotics-in-law considers the law as a system of signs, whereas semiotics-of-law examines legal information exchanges via the study of sign systems. The semiotics-in-law approach embraces three key features: 1) the legal realm viewed as an infinite system of signs; 2) semiotics methods in examining the law; 3) semiotics as providing a common language for scholars, practitioners, and the general public (Chapdelaine-Feliciati, Bloomsbury Anthology 2022). These three elements are described below.

1.1 Substance: Infinite Sign System

The first element of semiotics-in-law is substance. The legal field constitutes an infinite apparatus of signs and symbols, and Semiotics is therefore deeply ensconced in law. The legal sphere encompasses multidirectional interactions between 1) the signifier; 2) the signified; and 3) their interpretants and interpreters: lawyers, judges, policymakers, scholars, semioticians, and the general public. Accordingly, for the purpose of legal semiotics, the legal realm is not viewed in a restrictive sense as solely comprising legal concepts, such as the well-known actus reus and mens rea components of a crime, legal documents such as the factum, or legal institutions, for example courtrooms.

1.2 Semiotics Methods in Examining the Law

The second important element of semiotics-in-law is that it offers methods to critically examine signs and symbols in the legal realm, such as Welby’s Threefold Laws of Meaning and Peirce’s triadic classifications of immediate, dynamical and final interpretants (Chapdelaine-Feliciati, 2013, 2018, 2022). Kevelson observes that: “Properly speaking, one may speak of legal semiotics as such when investigators intentionally acknowledge semiotics as a theory and method and when they deliberately conduct their research according to the assumptions of semiotics” (1988b, 19). In this regard, methodology constitutes the central test to identify whether one is indeed participating in legal semiotics.

1.3 Common language

The third component of semiotics-in-law is that it provides a common language to interpret symbols that can be employed by semioticians and lawyers. It constitutes a bridge between law and norm, scholars and practitioners, the black letter law and various disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, such as philosophy, sociology, linguistics, anthropology and communication. Some employ legal semiotics to resolve theoretical problems, others to deconstruct the master discourse, and finally, some simply for the intellectual and interdisciplinary exercise of exploring legal icons. Legal semioticians “translate” legal concepts into common language and meaning, thereby acting as intermediaries between master signifiers and the general public.

2. Categorization

Kevelson considers that semiotics of law constitutes a discipline, and Landowski, a sub-discipline of semiotics, while Jackson notes that for many it functions as a meta-discipline providing a language to study the legal science, or an auxiliary discipline rooted in philosophy or sociology (Jackson 2010, 29). Hence Jackson argues that semiotics of law cannot be considered a discipline per se, since it does not follow a common set of methods, (2010, 29) although several legal semioticians presently apply semiotics methods in their examination of the law. Tiefenbrun contends that semiotics influenced several schools of thought, including legal hermeneutics and critical legal theory, and traces a parallel between the development of legal positivism and legal realism with Saussure and Peirce’s theories, respectively (2010, 25). One can argue that legal semiotics constitutes a “doctrine” of legal signs, inspired by Sebeok’s view of general semiotics as a “body of principles and opinions that vaguely go to form a field of knowledge” (Petrilli 2010, 6). Hence some consider legal semiotics as a special branch dedicated to the study of law within the science of semiotics, others as a sub-discipline within legal theory, and finally others as an interdisciplinary method to explore the legal realm. Legal semiotics has a dual nature which varies according to its reader or interpreter: it is perceived by some as inclusive and all encompassing, while others view it as a specialized subdivision within larger categories of disciplines and theories.

3. New Discipline and Contemporary Legal Semioticians

Legal scholars and semioticians have yet to incorporate legal semiotics into their respective fields, which could be explained, in part, by the absence of semiotics as a formal integrated Law School pedagogy. Lawyers employ legal semiotics to decode legal signs and adapt legisigns to their advantage, from jury selection to the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. However, they do not knowingly and formally apply semiotics as a methodology. Legal scholars adopt an increasingly interdisciplinary approach to interpretation, however there is currently a divide between legal interpretation and semiotics (Smolka and Pirker 2016). Tiefenbrun notes that only ‘a courageous few’ have entered the realm of legal semiotics (2010, 24–25). In recent years, there have been significant developments in semiotics-of-law and semiotics-in-law. Contemporary legal semioticians explore the meaning of legal discourse in various fields, including legal philosophy (Ricca, Jackson, Aroso Linhares, Simões Gaudêncio), legal translation (Wagner, Carvalho, Cheng), international law and legal education (Broekman, Fleerackers, Catá-Baker, Mootz III, Tiefenbrun, Chapdelaine-Feliciati).

An interesting development is the incorporation of legal semiotics as a pedagogical method to teach the law. Broekman established the Kevelson Seminar on Law and Semiotics at the Dickinson School of Law, Penn State University, USA, the first fully integrated seminar in a United States Law School regular program, and examined the outcomes of this approach in several publications (2011, 2013, 2016, 2018). Since then, Chapdelaine-Feliciati has applied legal semiotics as an educational method of legal inquiry in international law to evaluate legisigns and decode the meaning behind icons, symbols and arguments, at the University of Toronto and York University, in Toronto, Canada and the Sino-British Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University in Suzhou, China (Chapdelaine-Feliciati 2023).

The International Roundtable for the Semiotics of law holds annual international and bilingual conferences (English-French), and the main journal in the field of legal semiotics, the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, publishes recent theories on sub-disciplines in English and French.