Semantic Ambiguity and Its Impact on Language Interpretation in Legal Discourse
Keywords:
Semantic Ambiguity, Legal Discourse, Pragmatic InferenceAbstract
Semantic ambiguity remains a critical challenge in both linguistic theory and practical applications, especially in domains demanding high interpretive precision such as legal discourse. This study aims to examine the nature, sources, and implications of semantic ambiguity by integrating perspectives from cognitive linguistics, legal hermeneutics, and cross-cultural pragmatics. Employing a qualitative analytical method, data were drawn from legal case studies, discourse analysis, and comparative linguistic literature. The findings reveal that ambiguity often arises from polysemy, syntactic complexity, cultural frameworks, and pragmatic inference. In legal contexts, such ambiguity can significantly influence judicial outcomes and the interpretation of statutes. The study suggests that applying systematic semantic analysis and interdisciplinary interpretive models can minimize misinterpretation and promote fairness in communication. These results contribute to advancing theoretical insights in meaning studies while offering practical strategies for mitigating ambiguity in critical decision-making contexts.
References
Amiati, M., Halim, H., & Hassim, J. Z. (2024). Navigating ambiguity: Critiques of Indonesia’s Health Law and its impact on legal redress for medical malpractice victims. Hasanuddin Law Review, 10(1), 94–?.
Amiati, M., Halim, H., & Hassim, J. Z. (2024). Navigating ambiguity: Critiques of Indonesia’s Health Law and its impact on legal redress for medical malpractice victims. Hasanuddin Law Review, 10(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v10i1.4078
Barnum, T. C., & Nagin, D. S. (2021). Ambiguity and legal compliance. Criminology & Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12565
Barnum, T. C., & Nagin, D. S. (2021). Ambiguity and legal compliance. Criminology & Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12565
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press.
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. Macmillan.
House, J. (2016). Translation as communication across languages and cultures. Routledge.
John Deere. (n.d.). Nothing runs like a Deere [Advertisement slogan]. John Deere. https://www.deere.com
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2023). Speech and language processing (3rd ed. draft). Stanford University. https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G., & Short, M. (2007). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose (2nd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Lin, X., Afzaal, M., & Aldayel, H. S. (2023). Syntactic complexity in legal translated texts and the use of plain English: A corpus-based study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01692-?
Lin, X., Afzaal, M., & Aldayel, H. S. (2023). Syntactic complexity in legal translated texts and the use of plain English: A corpus-based study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01692-w
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1–2). Cambridge University Press.
Nowak, A. (2016). Demystifying ambiguity in legislative writing. Statute Law Review, 37(2), 164–171.
Nowak, A. (2016). Demystifying ambiguity in legislative writing. Statute Law Review, 37(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmw004
Pym, A. (2014). Exploring translation theories (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760301
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4
Taguchi, N. (2015). Developing interactional competence in a Japanese study abroad context. Multilingua, 34(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0033
Tampubolon, M. (2025). Decoding legal ambiguity: The interplay between law and legal semiotics in modern jurisprudence. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-025-10271-2
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Mouton de Gruyter.
Zeifert, M., & Tobor, Z. (2021). Legal translation versus legal interpretation: A legal-theoretical perspective. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law / Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 35, 1671–1687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09837-7
Zeifert, M., & Tobor, Z. (2021). Legal translation versus legal interpretation: A legal-theoretical perspective. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 35, 1671–1687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09837-7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sara Stefani Malau, Bernieke Anggita Ristia Damanik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
