Research article
A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study
Wyrok Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z perspektywy kognitywnej teorii prototypu. Studium przypadku
Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, nr 2(23)/2020, s. 109-120
English
Abstract
Interpretative doubts in the application of law are usually born of discrepancies between the statutory language and the non-linguistic reality. Therefore, they pose the problem of categorization. The theory of law and legal practice have for centuries been dominated by the classical theory of categorization, according to which conceptual categories can be described by a set of sufficient and necessary features. In the 1970s, an American researcher Eleanor Rosch conducted a series of psychological experiments that led her to question the classical theory and lay the foundations for an alternative one, known as the prototype theory. According to this approach, conceptual categories are organized around the most typical exemplars (prototypes), and membership of a category is measured by similarity to the prototype. Some of the consequences of such view are that category membership is a gradable feature and that the borderlines of categories are fuzzy. The article presents an outline of the prototype theory in the version used in cognitive linguistics. Its usefulness for the theory and practice of statutory interpretation is tested on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the concept of beer. In this judgment, the CJEU refused to define the concept of beer by setting requirements as to its raw material composition and ruled that beer is a product that has organoleptic characteristics of beer. This definition on the basis of classical theory appears to be tautological, however, it finds theoretical justification in the prototype theory. In conclusions, the author indicates research problems that must be taken up in order for the prototype theory to be reliably used in jurisprudence.
Keywords
- categorization
- semantics
- prototype theory
- statutory interpretation
References
29 reference entries
References
-
Fillmore, C.J. (1975). An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1975, 123–131.
-
Geeraerts, D. (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Language 27/4, 587–612.
-
Gizbert-Studnicki, T. (1985). Teoria prawa, filozofia języka, lingwistyka. Studia Filozoficzne 2-3, 67– 81.
-
Gizbert-Studnicki, T. (2019). Pisma wybrane. Prawo. Język, normy, rozumowania. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
-
Hart, H.L.A. (1998). Pojęcie prawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
-
Hart, H.L.A. (1977). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. In R. Dworkin (Ed.), The Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Katz, J.J., Fodor, J.A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39/2, 170–210.
-
Kaufmann, A. (2018). Od prawa natury i pozytywizmu prawniczego do hermeneutyki prawniczej. In J. Zajadło (Ed.), Kaufmann. Sopot: Wydawnictwo Arche.
-
Kleiber, G. (2003). Semantyka prototypu. Kategorie i znaczenie leksykalne. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Universitas.
-
Kopyra, T. (2016). Piwo. Wszystko, co musisz wiedzieć, żeby nie wyjść na głupka. Kraków: Flow Books.
-
Lakoff, G. (2011). Kobiety, ogień i rzeczy niebezpieczne. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Universitas.
-
Langacker, R.W. (2009). Gramatyka kognitywna. Wprowadzenie. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Universitas.
-
Milan, M. (2019). Piwny wyrok. Gazeta Finansowa, https://gf24.pl/biznes-i-gospodarka/ [last access: 20.12.2019].
-
Rosch, E.H. (1975). Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104/3, 192–233.
-
Rosch, E.H. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 4/3, 328–350.
-
Rosch, E.H. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E.H. Rosch, B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.
-
Slocum, B.H. (2012). Linguistics and ‘Ordinary Meaning’ Determinations. Statute Law Review 33/1, 1– 73.
-
Solan, L. (2010). The Language of Statutes. Laws and Their Interpretation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
-
Solan, L. (2001). Why Laws Work Pretty Well, But Not Great: Words and Rules in Legal Intrepretation. Law and Social Inquiry 26, 243–270.
-
Taylor, J.R. (2001). Kategoryzacja w języku. Prototypy w teorii językoznawczej. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Universitas.
-
Taylor, J.R. (2008). Prototypes in Cognitive Linguistics. In P.J. Robinson, N.C Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisitions. New York: Routledge.
-
Tobor, Z. (2013). W poszukiwaniu intencji prawodawcy. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
-
Waismann, F. (1951). Verifi ability. In A. Flew (Ed.), Logic and Language, the First Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
-
Winter S. (2001). A Clearing In the Forest. Law, Life and Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
-
Wittgenstein, L. (2004). Dociekania filozoficzne. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
-
Wojtczak, S., Witczak -Plisiecka, I., Augustyn, R. (2017). Metafory konceptualne jako narzędzia rozumowania i poznania prawniczego. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
-
Wróblewski, J. (1990). Rozumienie prawa i jego wykładnia. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
-
Zeifert, M. (2019). Gramatyka przepisu jako przesłanka decyzji interpretacyjnej. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
-
Zieliński, M. (2017). Wykładnia prawa. Zasady, reguły, wskazówki. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Publication information
Issue data
Issue nr 2(23)/2020
- Pages
- 109-120
- Published
How to cite
Bibliographic description and verified export formats.
Format AFPiFS
M. Zeifert, A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study, „Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej” nr 2(23)/2020, s. 109–120, DOI: 10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109
ACM
[1] Mateusz Zeifert. 2020. A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study. AFPiFS 2(23) (2020), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109
ACS
(1) Zeifert, M. A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study. AFPiFS 2020, No. 2(23), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109.
APA
Zeifert, M. (2020). A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 2(23), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109
ABNT
ZEIFERT, Mateusz. A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, n. 2(23), p. 109–120, 2020.
Chicago
Zeifert, Mateusz. “A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 2(23) (2020): 109–20. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109.
Harvard
Zeifert, M. (2020) “A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study,” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 2(23), pp. 109–120. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109.
IEEE
[1] M. Zeifert, “A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study,” AFPiFS, no. 2(23), pp. 109–120, 2020, doi: 10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109.
MLA
Zeifert, Mateusz. “A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 2(23), 2020, pp. 109–20, https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109.
Turabian
Zeifert, Mateusz. “A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 2(23) (2020): 109–20. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109.
Vancouver
1. Zeifert M. A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study. AFPiFS. 2020;2(23):109–20. doi:10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109
OSCOLA
Mateusz Zeifert, ‘A Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Perspective of Cognitive Theory of Prototypes: A Case Study’ (2020) 2(23) AFPiFS 109 <https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2020.2.109>.