{"id":2506,"date":"2023-06-23T14:15:18","date_gmt":"2023-06-23T14:15:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/"},"modified":"2023-10-02T16:15:43","modified_gmt":"2023-10-02T16:15:43","slug":"the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation","status":"publish","type":"publicacoes","link":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/","title":{"rendered":"The expression of norms as a speech act: assessing the explanatory power of theories of interpretation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.<\/p>","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"imagem-da-publicacao":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/noimage.png","areas-de-investigacao":"Teoria do Direito","investigador-responsavel":[],"editor-externo":"","editor":["1759"],"autores-externos":"David Duarte","referencia-biografica":"DUARTE, David; MONIZ LOPES, Pedro: \u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 36. 1, 2022.","projeto-a-que-pertence":"Lisbon Legal Theory","selecionar_o_projeto_a_que_pertence":[],"titulo-do-livro-revista":"International Journal for the Semiotics of Law","ano":"2022","isbn":"","editora":"Springer","link-para-download":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11196-022-09936-z"},"cluster":[34],"categoria-da-publicacao":[38],"grupo-de-investigacao":[13],"class_list":["post-2506","publicacoes","type-publicacoes","status-publish","hentry","cluster-lisbon-legal-theory","categoria-da-publicacao-artigo","grupo-de-investigacao-teoria-e-filosofia-do-direito"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>\u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lisbon Public Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-10-02T16:15:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/publicacoes\\\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/publicacoes\\\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\\\/\",\"name\":\"\u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-23T14:15:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-10-02T16:15:43+00:00\",\"description\":\"The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/publicacoes\\\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/publicacoes\\\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/publicacoes\\\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Publica\u00e7\u00f5es\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/publicacoes\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"The expression of norms as a speech act: assessing the explanatory power of theories of interpretation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/\",\"name\":\"Lisbon Public Law\",\"description\":\"Public Law Research Centre in Lisbon\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Lisbon Public Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-19-at-11.01.50-1.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-19-at-11.01.50-1.jpeg\",\"width\":354,\"height\":354,\"caption\":\"Lisbon Public Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d","description":"The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d","og_description":"The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.","og_url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/","og_site_name":"Lisbon Public Law","article_modified_time":"2023-10-02T16:15:43+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d","twitter_description":"The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/","url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/","name":"\u201cThe Expression of Norms as a Speech Act: Assessing the Explanatory Power of Theories of Interpretation\u201d","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-06-23T14:15:18+00:00","dateModified":"2023-10-02T16:15:43+00:00","description":"The expression of norms is a kind of speech act that bears very specific invariant features. It is submitted that a rigorous assessment of such features makes explicit some relevant limitations to the communicative process between the speaker (the lawmaking authority) and the hearers (the norm addressees). Our claim is two-fold. On the one hand, regarding the propositional contents expressed, we claim that the specific features of the expression of norms limit \u00abwhat\u00bb can be appropriately uttered while expressing norms. On the other hand, these limitations impact the understanding of what was uttered. On the basis that theories of interpretation function as meta-explanations (i.e., explanations of interpretations), we sustain that the higher the coherence between a theory and the invariants of the phenomena it purports to explain, the better it will be. Upon review of the most relevant theories of interpretation, we claim that some theories evidence low explanatory power as their premises are incoherent with the explanandum. We conclude by submitting that, for the opposite reasons, textualism is the theory of interpretation that evidences the higher explanatory power.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/the-expression-of-norms-as-a-speech-act-assessing-the-explanatory-power-of-theories-of-interpretation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Publica\u00e7\u00f5es","item":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"The expression of norms as a speech act: assessing the explanatory power of theories of interpretation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/","name":"Lisbon Public Law","description":"Public Law Research Centre in Lisbon","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#organization","name":"Lisbon Public Law","url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-19-at-11.01.50-1.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-19-at-11.01.50-1.jpeg","width":354,"height":354,"caption":"Lisbon Public Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publicacoes\/2506","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publicacoes"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publicacoes"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"cluster","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cluster?post=2506"},{"taxonomy":"categoria-da-publicacao","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categoria-da-publicacao?post=2506"},{"taxonomy":"grupo-de-investigacao","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/grupo-de-investigacao?post=2506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}