This project investigates the philosophical and metaphilosophical foundations of legal interpretation through a comparative analysis of continental and common law theories, supplemented by empirical research on the beliefs and intuitions of legal professionals and laypeople. Its central hypothesis is that differences in the often tacit assumptions underlying interpretive theories have significant consequences for legal reasoning and practice. By reconstructing these assumptions, the project seeks to distinguish substantive disagreements from merely verbal disputes, assess the internal coherence of competing accounts, and establish a framework for their comparison across legal cultures.