The research of a middle course between interpretative legal formalism and interpretative legal
scepticism is one of the main characteristics of the contemporary debate on legal interpretation.
The difficulty of finding this space in the midst is due a) to the lack of a proper reflection
on the link between theory of interpretation and theory of meaning and b) to the unaware
acceptance of an unsuited theory of meaning. Either formalism or scepticism (or, better,
anti-formalism) presuppose a static conception of meaning: meaning is found (according
to formalism) or created (following scepticism) at one go. To be considered a valid alternative
to these two extremes, an intermediate theory of legal interpretation should propose a dynamic
approach to meaning. In this paper it will be presented an intermediate theory of legal
interpretation grounded on a dynamic theory of meaning.
