[T]he interpreter looks for parallel structures and other patterns, for recurring themes, and for variations in the patterns and themes. Above all, the interpreter asks the question "why": Why this choice of word, this combination of words, this arrangement?
-Ruth Sullivan, Statutory Interpretation

Judicial interpretation of statutes (and other legislation), it turns out, is a lot like close reading, minus aesthetic concerns. The lecture on statutory interpretation was the first time in law school that a professor mentioned the "post-modern literary theory" idea that readers create meaning rather than receive it. I felt briefly at home. Then we moved on.

This quote reminds me of Gertrude Stein's insistence on repetition and variation, although in statutes repetition and variation are intended to create consistent and stable interpretations, so that the law is as transparent as possible. Stein's repetition and variation does the exact opposite, destabilizing linguistic convention as much as possible, but with the ultimate goal of simplicity (clarity, transparency?). I wonder if Stein ever wrote about language and law?