 Yet the pragmatic effects of communication are essential in all of those formalised contexts of language use, and they are essential to the legislative use of language. This is true both of ‘near-side’ and ‘far-side’ pragmatics. The discussion of the decision in Garner v Burr, above, provides an illustration of the ways in which the context of a legislative enactment can determine the reference of terms such as ‘vehicle’, and this determination of meaning is an aspect of near-side pragmatics. The dispute over the requirement of pneumatic tires on ‘vehicles’ in Garner v Burr can be understood as a dispute over the effect of the context on the content of the regulatory provision; another way of making the same point is to describe it as a dispute over the implicatures to be drawn from the fact of the enactment of that provision. This aspect of the pragmatics of legal language is simply an instance of the pragmatics of the use of language in general. It would be very easy to formulate a version of the apparent paradox of legislative language, discussed in section 2.2 above, in a non-legal context: only imagine that Lawrence Burr’s mother told him not to go driving the farm vehicles down her driveway without tires.