 It is worth noting, as well, that the diversity of contexts of communication (even the diversity of conversations that the same two people may have, let alone all the diversity of exchanges that might be called ‘conversations’ by more or less remote analogy) is so great that the variations among pragmatic aspects of ordinary conversations are much wider and deeper than any general distinction that can be drawn between legislative communication as a class, and ordinary conversations as a class. The use of language in making law is so closely interwoven with the use of language to exercise authority in other contexts, and with the use of language in games, in talk (in many different contexts) of what is right and wrong, and generally in communication in families and in organisations of every kind, that the pragmatics of legal language is best seen as a deeply integral part of the pragmatics of the use of language in general.