Statutory language is a social institution constraining what words can mean

Evidence

In deciding whether words will bear a particular meaning, a court needs to be linguistically wise and not naive. It needs to understand, especially, that meaning depends upon context. But language is a social institution. Humpty Dumpty was wrong when he said that you can make words mean whatever you want them to mean. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3510

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Relates to the drafting/style essays’ treatment of who controls public language.
• CANDY: ‘Humpty Dumpty was wrong’ is a delightful one-line compression of the whole social-institution argument.
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Word meanings are social facts no individual user can unilaterally change. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1471; The plain-meaning rule forced lawyers into dual-level arguments about statutory meaning. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1988; Legal language holds meaning across unforeseeable contexts through a promise-like indeterminacy (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Legal language holds meaning across unforeseeable contexts through a promise-like indeterminacy #expands (0.85)
• Language enables conventions rather than being constituted by them. #contradicts (0.85) — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism, 420
• Language is socially constructed and speaks through individuals #complicates (0.75)
• Literal statutory interpretations are defeasible starting points #qualifies (0.75) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 303