Transparency, Control and Power in Legal Semiotics: Contexts and Issues

Legal discourse is different from most other professional discourses, in that the nature and context of its interpretation, whether spoken or written, is very often different from those of other discourse contexts. Whereas in most professional and disciplinary contexts interpretation of discourse is largely hearer or reader based, in that there is some freedom for variable interpretations, of course, with some relevance to the context in which it is being done, interpretation of legal discourse is most often based on its relevance and hence application to critical moments of application in specialized ‘sites of engagement’ ([1], p. 27) and is often irrespective of the participants involved and still every effort is made to ensure consistency of interpretation. It is particularly so in the case of legislative writing, which is drafted to correct a specific social mischief and hence invariably interpreted in the context of relevant descriptions of such instances of cases, often known as the material facts of the case to which specific legislative statements are applicable. The important implication of these factors is that legal discourse is rarely, if ever, interpreted in vacuum and is almost always interpreted in the context of real life events. Interestingly enough, this does not mean that every time it is interpreted in the context of a set of circumstances in real life, it is interpreted differently; contrary to that, it is most often interpreted consistently and every time a specific interpretation is taken, it achieves the force of law, that is, it becomes a precedent for other decisions in a similar set of descriptions of cases. Underlying this consistency of interpretation is the issue of the nature and extent of detailed specification (under or over specification) which is further related to the issues of transparency, power, and control in specific socio-political contexts, which have important implications for the interpretation of legal discourse in a range of socio-political and other public domains. We would like to reiterate that although clarity, precision, unambiguity, and all-inclusiveness are the four key aspects of the construction and interpretation of