Adverbial modification with “knowingly” and “intentionally” in criminal legal cases
- Julia Skrobol, Queen Mary University of London
- Geography Building 126, Queen Mary University of London
The aim of my research is to investigate the adverbial modification with "knowingly" and "intentionally" in criminal legal cases. I am interested in whether the use of these adverbs gives rise to grammatical ambiguity and "de re"/ "de dicto" distinction in interpretation (Quine, 1956). Based on the data gathered from the corpus of legal texts, my hypothesis is that "knowingly" and "intentionally" always give rise to "de re"/ "de dicto" distinction, but not the grammatical ambiguity. "Knowingly" and "intentionally" belong to the class of mens rea adverbs, i.e. adverbs which carry information about a person’s mental state ("Theories of Criminal Law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)", 2018). To illustrate how mensrea adverbs work, I will use the scenario from the Greek tragedy "Oedipus the King". In this tragedy, Oedipus, the King of Thebes, marries Jokasta who, unbeknownst to him, is his mother. In this context, sentences 1a. and 1b. have the same meaning.
1a. Oedipus married Jokasta.
1b. Oedipus married his mother.
With knowingly, however, their meanings seem to come apart:
2a. Oedipus knowingly married Jocasta.
2b. Jocasta is Oedipus’s mother.
2c. Therefore, Oedipus knowingly married his mother.
2c. is expected to logically follow from 2a. and 2b., but instead it is semantically ambiguous. On the "de re" reading, 2c. describes Oedipus’s beliefs from the point of view of a speaker who knows what Oedipus doesn’t: that Jokasta is Oedipus’s mother. On that reading, 2c. is true. On the "de dicto" reading, however, 2c. describes Oedipus’s belief in a way that he would accept as being accurate. On that reading, 2c. is false. The same pattern occurs with "intentionally":
3a. Oedipus intentionally married Jokasta. 3b. Jocasta is Oedipus’s mother.
3c. Oedipus intentionally married his mother. Given examples raise a question whether Oedipus (i) knows that Jokasta is his mother; (ii) knowingly/ intentionally married Jokasta and (iii) knowingly/ intentionally married his mother. Answering similar questions in legal context can decide whether a person is guilty of committing a crime or not. Answering them has, therefore, socially significant consequences as it tells us how ambiguity in law could be avoided.
1b. Oedipus married his mother.
With knowingly, however, their meanings seem to come apart:
2a. Oedipus knowingly married Jocasta.
2b. Jocasta is Oedipus’s mother.
2c. Therefore, Oedipus knowingly married his mother.
2c. is expected to logically follow from 2a. and 2b., but instead it is semantically ambiguous. On the "de re" reading, 2c. describes Oedipus’s beliefs from the point of view of a speaker who knows what Oedipus doesn’t: that Jokasta is Oedipus’s mother. On that reading, 2c. is true. On the "de dicto" reading, however, 2c. describes Oedipus’s belief in a way that he would accept as being accurate. On that reading, 2c. is false. The same pattern occurs with "intentionally":
3a. Oedipus intentionally married Jokasta. 3b. Jocasta is Oedipus’s mother.
3c. Oedipus intentionally married his mother. Given examples raise a question whether Oedipus (i) knows that Jokasta is his mother; (ii) knowingly/ intentionally married Jokasta and (iii) knowingly/ intentionally married his mother. Answering similar questions in legal context can decide whether a person is guilty of committing a crime or not. Answering them has, therefore, socially significant consequences as it tells us how ambiguity in law could be avoided.