Legal Concepts and Multilingual Contexts in Digital Information


Analysis of legal documents cannot be reduced to their linguistic expression. When dealing whit legal texts a distinction should be made between the linguistic form (normative statement) and the content (norm). Norms are conceived as the interpreted meaning of linguistic contexts (partitions in a legal text, fragments of judicial decisions, etc). In the interpretative process, legal practitioners make reference to an external system of concepts that can be assumed, even if not universal, at least shared by a large social and cultural community. As a consequence, legal interpretation and legal conceptualization are strongly influenced by cultural, social and political factors and changes in meaning of legal concepts occur within a synchronic localization in different cultures and within a diachronic evolution process of the environment in which they are created. This dynamic nature of legal knowledge poses serious problems in communicating legal information, and even more in the realm of digital communication, where, in order to manage knowledge across national borders, there is a strong demand of shared vocabularies embedding a shared understanding of legal concept. This paper aims at showing how lexical/terminological resources and conceptual structures, such as ontologies, can be constructed by means of the innovative tools provided by ICT, like the Semantic Web languages, the computational linguistic and the ontology engineering techniques. Such semantic resources may have a strategic role in representing meaning evolution and in investigating social and cultural influences in linguistic uses and, as a further goal, solutions offered by ICT for bridging the gap between form and content can also provide innovative visions of theoretical issues.

Share and Cite:

D. Tiscornia and M. Sagri, "Legal Concepts and Multilingual Contexts in Digital Information," Beijing Law Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, 2012, pp. 73-80. doi: 10.4236/blr.2012.33010.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] B. Bottalico, S. Azzini and A. Santosuosso, “Universal v. National in Bioethics. The Informal Transnational Flow of Legal Standards and a Theoretical-Practical Proposal,” 2009.
[2] R. Tennerman, “Questioning the Univocity Ideal. The Difference between Socio-Cognitive Terminology and Traditional Terminology,” Hermes: Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 18, 1997, pp. 51-91.
[3] L. Mommers, W. Voermans, W. Koelewijn and H. Kielman, “Understanding the Law: Improving Legal Knowledge Dissemination by Translating the Contents of Formal Sources of Law,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2009, pp. 51-78. doi:10.1007/s10506-008-9073-5
[4] S. Toulmin, “The Uses of Argument Cambridge,” Cambridge University Press, London, 1958.
[5] H. L. Hart, “The Concept of Law,” Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958.
[6] N. Holmes, “Accessible Law,” 2011.
[7] G. Ajani, “Terminology and Search Functions. 25 Years of European Law Online,” Publications Office of the EU, Luxembourg, 2007, pp. 129-136.
[8] L. S. A. Huey and Y. Matsuura, “Law Pack—Koala’s Gift for Comparative Law in Context,” Proceedings of Law via the Internet Conference, Hong Kong, 11 June 2011.
[9] E. Sherwin, “Legal Taxonomy,” Legal Theory, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2009, pp. 5-54.
[10] E. De Maat, K. Krabben and R. Winkels, “Machine Learning versus Knowledge Based Classification of Legal Texts,” Proceedings of Legal Knowledge and Information Systems—JURIX 2010: The 23rd Annual Conference, Amsterdam, 16-17 December 2010, pp. 87-96.
[11] E. Francesconi, S. Montemagni, W. Peters and D. Tiscornia, “Semantic Processing of Legal Texts. Where the Language of Law Meets the Law of Language,” Springer, Berlin, 2010.
[12] G. Bartoloni and E. Francesconi, “Sharing Knowledge by Conceptual Mapping: The Case of EU Thesaural Interoperability,” Proceedings of the JURIX Conference, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2010, pp. 17-26.
[13] T. R. Gruber, “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specification,” Journal of Knowledge Acquisition —Special Issue: Current Issues in Knowledge Modelling, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1993, pp. 199-220.
[14] C. Fellbaum, “WordNet: An electronic lexical database,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[15] A. Valente, J. Breuker and B. Brouwer, “Legal modelling and automated reasoning with ON-LINE,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 51, No. 6, 1999, pp. 1079-1125. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0298
[16] J. Breuker, B. Brouwer and A. Valente, “Use and Reuse of Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management,” In: Law and the Semantic Web: Legal Ontologies, Methodologies, Legal Information Retrieval, and Applications (Lecture Notes in Computer Science/ Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence), Springer Verlag, London, 2005, pp. 36-64.
[17] A. Gangemi, M.-T. Sagri and D. Tiscornia, “A Constructive Framework for Legal Ontologies,” In: B. Selic and A. Gangemi, Eds., Law and the Semantic Web—Legal Ontologies, Methodologies, Legal Information Retrieval, and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Subseries: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Amsterdam, 2005, pp. 97-124.
[18] R. Hoekstra, J. Breuker, M. Di Bello and A. Boer, “The LKIF Core Ontology of Basic Legal Concepts,” The Leibniz Center for Law, Amsterdam, 2008, pp. 43-63.
[19] P. Vossen, “EuroWordNet: A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic Networks,” Springer, Berlin, 1998.
[20] W. Peters, D. Tiscornia and M. T. Sagri, “The Structuring of Legal Knowledge in LOIS,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007, pp. 117-135.
[21] C.-R. Huang, N. Calzolari, A. Gangemi, A. Lenci, A. Oltramari and L. Prevot, “Ontology and the Lexicon,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511676536
[22] C. Roche, “Saying Is Not Modelling,” Proceedings of NLPCS 2007 (Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Science), Funchal, June 2007, pp. 47-56.
[23] P. Cimiano, E. Montiel-Ponsoda, P. Buitelaar, M. Espinoza and A. Gomez-Pérez, “A Note on Ontology Localization,” Applied Ontology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2010, pp. 127-137.
[24] W. N. Hohfeld, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 26, No. 8, 1917, pp. 710-770. doi:10.2307/786270
[25] R. Sacco, “Prospettive della Scienza Civilistica Italiana All’Inizio del Nuovo Secolo,” Rivista di Diritto Civile, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2005, pp. 417-441.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.