Rethinking Hart: From Open Texture to Prototype Theory—Analytic Philosophy Meets Cognitive Linguistics

Abstract

The article is based on an observation that there are significant and non-arbitrary similarities between two, seemingly quite distant, theories that address the problem of linguistic categorization. One is the theory of open texture put forward by a prominent legal philosopher, Herbert L.A Hart. The other is the theory of prototypes, originated from psychological research by Eleanor Rosch and developed by cognitively-oriented linguists, most notably Charles Fillmore, George Lakoff, and Ronald Langacker. Firstly, the origins of the open texture theory are presented, including the discussion of Friedrich Waismann's and Ludwig Wittgenstein's ideas and their impact on Hart's theory. Secondly, Hart's theory of open texture is examined, based on several articles and his masterpiece: The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1961). Thirdly, a brief introduction to the prototype theory is provided, focusing on its reception in Cognitive Linguistics. Fourthly, a comparison of both theories is presented, including a sketch of a broader philosophical and historical background, as well as a detailed analysis of similarities and dissimilarities between them. The comparison results in a conclusion that, on linguistic grounds, the open texture theory can be viewed as an anticipation of prototype theory. Finally, several reservations are made in order to avoid possible confusions and some obvious objections.

The Concept of Legal Language: What Makes Legal Language ‘Legal‘?

“…If an object corresponds to a prototype, it can be classified under the concept that the prototype represents [51]. It may be surprising that this theory has much in common with Hart's thesis of the open texture of law [52]. Similarly to Hart, Rosh concluded that prototypical categories can be hard to clearly define by using a single set of criteria, since they have blurred edges (in Wittgenstein's sense of the term [53]).…”

Cognitive Linguistics: Analysis of Mapping Knowledge Domains

“…These include prototype theory and categorization theory ( Rosch 1975 ) as well as conceptual metaphor and metonymy theories ( Lakoff and Johnson 1980a ), embodied realism and cognitive pragmatics. Some recent examples of this are Wen and Fu’s ( Wen and Fu 2021 ) examination of categorization as an ubiquitous component in reality and Zaifert’s ( Zeifert 2022 ) elaboration of prototype theory. Second, there is the Gestalt-psychology-based orientation which influenced Lakoff’s “Linguistic gestalt” ( Lakoff 1977 ), Langacker’s “Foundations of cognitive grammar” ( Langacker 1987 ) and Fillmore, Kay and O’Conner’s construction grammar ( Fillmore et al 1988 ) as well as varieties of constructional approaches to cognitive grammar ( Langacker 2009 ).…”

The open texture of ‘algorithm’ in legal language

“…Note, however, that the (implicit) history of the concept of open texture can be traced back even further, i.e., to some remarks made by Waismann regarding the epistemological status of empirical hypotheses in hisWaismann (1977).11 For alternative explications of open texture, see(Tanswell 2018;Vecht 2020;Zeifert 2020;Zayton 2022). …”