Professor Sinnott-Armstrong argues against the arguments published by Professor Prakash and Professor Alexander in an article on legal interpretation in which they defended the thesis that all interpretation properly so-called seeks to uncover the intended meaning of the author(s). Against their arguments, the Author defends coherence and importance of word meaning. In Part I, he more precisely defines the these that Alexander and Prakash deny and Professor Sinnott-Armstrong defends. In Part II, he will show why Alexander and Prakash's arguments fail to rule out word meanings. In PArt III, he will put these debates in a larger theoretical context and show why word meaning is important to legal interpretation.
Word Meaning in Legal Interpretation,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol42/iss2/3