The second argument – that linguistic interpretation in general seeks the linguistic meaning of texts – begs the question because it starts from the assumption that legal interpretation is a type of linguistic interpretation. It’s uncontroversial that legal interpretation typically involves scrutinizing linguistic texts, among other things – even that interpreting linguistic texts is typically part of what goes into legal interpretation. But in an inquiry into the constitutive aim of legal interpretation, it is question begging to assume that legal interpretation is linguistic interpretation in a sense that entails that legal interpretation has the constitutive aim of linguistic interpretation.[8]