This review essay analyzes the relation between language and the two basic functions of law, the ordering of social relations and the restoration of social order when it breaks down. One main theme is the linguistic description of legal language and the sociolinguistic and sociolegal limitations on its reform. Drawing on a basic distinction between the nature of discourse in play, ritual, and the “serious” mode of everyday life, the essay goes on to contrast “play” genres of disputing with “fact”-oriented genres. An overview of the forms and functions of play genres of disputing is followed by a discussion of the management of three main aspects of “facf'-oriented disputes: the substance of arguments, linguistic form, and language and silence. Narrative and questioning modes of claim construction are contrasted. The notion of “thickening” in legal language is presented, and five possible explanations for this phenomenon are explored. The essay concludes with a discussion of topics for future debate and research.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract