About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


54 S. Cal. L. Rev. 151 (1980-1981)
The Semantics of Judging

handle is hein.journals/scal54 and id is 165 raw text is: ARTICLES THE SEMANTICS OF JUDGING MICHAEL S. MOORE* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. LEGAL FORMALIST PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT M EAN IN G ................................................ 167 A. THE REFERENTIAL THEORY OF MEANING ............. 167 B. THE LOGICAL POSITIVIST THEORY OF MEANING ...... 170 1. Analytic Truths .................................... 170 2. The Criterial Theory of Meaning ................... 173 3. The Empiricist Thesis .............................. 175 C. A SUBJECTIVIST ALTERNATIVE TO THE LOGICAL POSITIVIST THEORY OF MEANING ..................... 179 II. PROBLEMS FACING THE FORMALIST THEORIES OF MEANING ............................................ 180 A. PROBLEMS FACING THE LOGICAL POSITIVIST THEORY OF M EANING .......................................... 181 1. General Problems with Any Objective Theory of M eaning ........................................... 181 a. Ambiguity: ...................................... 181 b. Metaphor: ...................................... 188 c. Vagueness. ..................................... 193 d. Open texture: ................................... 200 © Michael S. Moore April, 1980 * Professor of Law, University of Southern California Law Center. A.B. 1964, University of Oregon; J.D. 1967, S.J.D. 1978, Harvard University. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to two faculty workshops at the University of Southern California Law Center, to the Legal Theory Workshop at the Yale Law School and to the Philosophy Department and Law School at the University of Nebraska. My thanks go to the participants at these colloquia, and particularly to Robert Audi, Scott Bice, Paul Brest, Ruth Gavison, Margaret Radin, Michael Sha- piro, and Christopher Stone, for their many helpful comments and criticisms. This paper originated from teaching Law, Language & Ethics at the University of Southern California Law Center. Those familiar with the casebook of the same name by William Bishin and Christopher Stone will recognize the debt owed to them for the ideas and examples of their casebook.