Contract Interpretation with Corpus Linguistics
58 Pages Posted: 8 Nov 2017 Last revised: 6 Aug 2018
Date Written: July 31, 2018
When called upon to interpret the undefined language of a contract, judges and lawyers have for centuries appealed to the so-called Plain Meaning Rule—a canon of contractual interpretation that states that if the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot consider extrinsic evidence. Courts and scholars disagree about the quantum of evidence that is necessary to determine the meaning of contractual provisions. Even absent a finding of ambiguity, contextualists look to extrinsic evidence to support claims about the contractual meaning. But the contextualist approach may impose significant costs on the contracting parties and invite strategic behavior. Formalists, by contrast, justify the Plain Meaning Rule on the grounds of efficiency and predictability, and exclude extrinsic evidence absent a finding of ambiguity. But the formalist approach is faulted for failing to provide a meaningful account of the parties’ intentions and for placing heavy reliance upon the judge’s own linguistic intuitions and general-use English dictionaries—both problematic guides to Plain Meaning. Corpus linguistics offers a middle way. Corpus linguistics draws on evidence of language use from large, coded, electronic collections of natural texts. Linguistic corpora can be designed to model the linguistic conventions of a wide variety of speech communities, industries, or linguistic registers. Relying on language evidence from linguistic corpora, judges and lawyers can create a more accurate, evidence-based picture of the language use of the contracting parties. Because large, sophisticated linguistic corpora are freely available and easy to use with a modicum of training, language evidence from linguistic corpora offers a comparatively low-cost alternative to the vast quantity of extrinsic evidence permitted by contextualist interpretative approaches. Moreover, by evaluating corpus evidence, judges and lawyers can create a more accurate, objective picture of contractual meaning than can be found in the formalist judge’s linguistic intuition or in a general-use dictionary. At bottom, I argue that the question of the plain meaning of the words of a contract calls for evidence-based answer—an answer that is rooted in experimentation and observation and whose results are verifiable and falsifiable. Below I outline how corpus linguistic methods may be applied to the interpretation of contracts.
Keywords: corpus linguistics, contracts, interpretation, plain meaning, ordinary meaning, ambiguity
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation