The integration of corpus linguistics into statutory interpretation is championed by textualists who argue that analyzing expansive digital databases of historical texts offers an empirical method for establishing the "ordinary meaning" of contested legal terms. This quantitative approach operates on the premise that the most statistically frequent contexts in which a word appears reliably map onto its core semantic content, thereby reducing arbitrary judicial discretion. However, semantic theorists argue that this methodology systematically conflates communicative frequency with semantic boundaries. If a 1950s linguistic corpus indicates that the term "family" most commonly co-occurred with references to a nuclear household, this merely reflects the sociocultural pragmatics of the era—what people discussed most often—rather than the word's definitive linguistic parameters. Moreover, because legislative drafting frequently employs intentional underspecification to delegate the resolution of edge cases to courts or agencies, the most statistically typical historical usage is rarely determinative of the borderline disputes that actually generate litigation. Ultimately, treating the most prototypical historical referent as the exhaustive definition arbitrarily truncates a term's broader semantic capacity.
It can be most reasonably inferred from the passage that the semantic theorists mentioned would consider which of the following to be a likely consequence of a judge relying strictly on corpus linguistics to interpret the word "family" in a 1950s statute?
- AThe judge would accurately define the statutory penumbra of the word but fail to resolve the underlying litigation surrounding it.
- BThe judge would conclude that the term is entirely devoid of semantic boundaries due to the overwhelming variety of its contexts in the historical corpus.
- The judge might mistakenly exclude a valid but atypical household arrangement from the statute's purview by equating the word's definitive parameters with its most statistically prevalent historical referent.Answer
- DThe judge would determine that the legislature intentionally underspecified the term to allow for the future evolution of the concept of a household.
- EThe judge would incorrectly interpret the term based on how judges historically ruled on family law in the 1950s, rather than how the general public used the term.