There is No Textualist Position

Fish, Stanley

Journal: San Diego Law Review

Volume: 42

First Page: 629

Year: 2005

Bluebook Citation: 42 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 629 (2005)

Author: S. Douglas Fish: all 21 publications


Abstract

The Author argues that there is no textualist position because there is no candidate on behalf of whom a would-be textualist could argue. He argues that lexical items and grammatical structures by themselves will yield no meaning - will not even me seen as lexical items and grammatical structures - until they are seen as having been produced by some intentional agent. A text whose meaning seems perspicuous and obvious right off the bat is a text for which an intentional context has already been assumed, and it is also a text whose clarity and stability can always be troubled by an argument designed to put another intentional context in place. It is the specification or assumption of intention that comes first; the fact of a text with meaning comes second.

The text, in short, has no independence; it is an entirely derivative entity - something else must be in place before it can emerge, as text - and as a derivative entity it cannot said to be the source or location of meaning.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.