English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The origin of the present issue lies in a number of questions which intersect both the fields of semiotics and of legal philosophy and theory, especially concerning the nature and function of languages, and the function of reasonableness and interpretation in the balancing of conflicting values. Can we consider semiotics as an autonomous discipline, with its own objects, issues and methods—or should we (instead) consider it as a field of study, a catalogue of undetermined and undefined interests, uneasy to be made homogeneous and to reunify?1 Following the last option, questions that are structural for semiotics are, for instance, at the core of the legal operations and of both traditional and innovative approaches to legal theory and practice. With such transdisciplinary attitude, we imagined a double-sided Roundtable (Turin, 19–20 September 2020), with participants working both in semiotics and legal philosophy, aimed at delving into questions such as: What is the role of reasonableness in legal hermeneutics today? Is the digital revolution having an impact on the production of legal knowledge and—if so—can semiotics enrich the analysis of such impact and transformation? In other words: how are legal and non-legal semiotics connected today? And can this relationship be traced back to antiquity? What is the relationship between the semioticians’ legal semiotics and jurists’ legal semiotics? Stemming from such origin, and against the background of the abovementioned problems, the papers gathered in this issue, all presented in the occasion of the Turin Roundtable, touch upon the intersection of disciplinary fields as well as of themes and questions all aligned in a way or another around the core semiotic grammar of the perennial movement between signs, objects, and interpretants—which has often

Special Issue “The Reasonable Interpreter. Perspectives on Legal and Non-Legal Semiotics”. Introduction