Cover not available

In:Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 177–194

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 8
Context and genre in judicial argumentation

A case-study

Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.09san
Abstract
This chapter takes into consideration the role of context in the production of judicial texts, focusing on judgements as a genre which displays special argumentative and textual characters. The purpose of the research, hinged on a case study, is to investigate how deeply and in which ways some features of the professional community generating an argumentative text – namely, the legal system and the traditional rules typical of the judicial community in the Italian tradition – influence both the logic and the linguistic structure.
The case study combines quantitative and qualitative analysis. Frequency lists and concordance lines produced with the Wordsmith Tools software are analysed and compared with data emerging from qualitative investigation in a discourse-based perspective, focusing on the actual use of argumentation. The analysis shows how the judge develops the argumentative line, taking a stand in the interlocutive dimension, and thus complying with legislative and discursive norms typical of the Italian judicial context.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Argumentation and the judicial context
    • 2.1Historical background
    • 2.2Contextual levels and genres
    • 2.3Judgements in the Italian judicial tradition
  • 3.A case study
    • 3.1Background, texts and analytical approach
    • 3.2Quantitative data
    • 3.3Structure and main arguments in the judgement
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (42)
References
Amossy, R. (2006). L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance. Argumentation and Discourse Analysis. Argumentation, 23 (3), 313–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antelmi, D., & Santulli, F. (2012). Arbitration Awards in Italy: Some Argumentative Features in the Discourse Analytical Perspective. In V. Bhatia, G. Garzone, & C. Degano (Eds), Arbitration Awards. Generic Features and Textual Realisations (pp. 91–108). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellucci, P. (2002). A onor del vero. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonnafous, S., & Tourier, M. (1995). Analyse du discours, lexicometrie, communication et politique. Langage, 117, 68–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bres, J., & Nowakowska A. (2005). Dis-moi avec qui tu ‘dialogues’, je te dirai qui tu es… De la pertinence de la notion de dialogisme pour l’analyse du discours. Margeslinguistiques 9, [URL], last accessed 20 October 2016.
Cortelazzo, M. (1997). Lingua e diritto in Italia. Il punto di vista dei linguisti. In Leo Schena (Ed.), La lingua del diritto (pp. 35–50). Roma: Cisu.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahlman, C., & Feteris, E. (Eds) (2012). Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degano, C. (2007). Presupposition and dissociation in discourse: a corpus study. Argumentation, 21, 361–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Discorsi di guerra. Milano: Led edizioni universitarie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Indicators of argumentation in arbitration awards: a diachronic perspective. In V. Bhatia, C. Candlin, & M. Gotti (Eds), The Discourses of Dispute Resolution (pp. 189–205). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Discourse Analysis, Argumentation Theory and Corpora: An Integrated Approach. Milano: Arcipelago Edizioni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (2001). In context. Argumentation, 25, 141–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic maneuvering. A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Legal Decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Argumentation in the field of law. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory (pp. 201–225). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Strategic maneuvering in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.) Examining Argumentation in Context (pp. 93–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiorelli, P. (1994). La lingua del diritto e dell’amministrazione. In L. Serianni, & P. Trifone (Eds), Storia della lingua italiana II (pp. 553–597). Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1994). Genres and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golden, J., & Pilotta, J. (Eds) (1986). Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grize, J-B. (1990). Logique et langage. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2004). Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law. Ratio juris, 17, 15–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haarscher, G. (Ed.) (1993). Chaim Perelman et la pensée contemporaine. Bruxelles: Bruylant.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995). Only connect. Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics. Lancaster: Technical Papers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maingueneau, D. (2007). Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mantovani, D. (2008). Lingua e diritto. Prospettive di ricerca tra sociolinguistica e pragmatica. In G. Garzone & F. Santulli (Eds). Il linguaggio giuridico. Prospettive interdisciplinari (pp. 17–56). Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maraschio, N., & De Martino, D. (Eds) (2012). Fuori l’italiano dall’università? Inglese, internazionalizzazione, politica linguistica. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzi, D. (2007). The Linguistic Study of Judicial Argumentation: Theoretical Perspectives Analytical Insights. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). La sentenza come genere argomentativo: una riflessione linguistica. In G. Garzone, & F. Santulli (Eds). Il linguaggio giuridico. Prospettive interdisciplinari (pp. 239–262). Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortara Garavelli, B. (2001). Le parole e la giustizia. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, A., Morley, J., & Haarman, L. (Eds) (2004). Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C. (1976). Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation. La Nouvelle Réthorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (1996). L’argumentation. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preite, C. (2008). La sentenza della Corte di Giustizia delle Comunità Europee: eterogeneità sequenziale ed enunciativa. In G. Garzone & F. Santulli (Eds). Il linguaggio giuridico. Prospettive interdisciplinari (pp. 263–283). Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reed, C. (2006). Preliminary results from an argument corpus. In: E. Bermúdez & L. Miyares (Eds), Linguistics in the Twenty-first Century (pp. 185–196). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sala, M. (2012). Linguistic and Textual Features in Italian Commercial Arbitration. In V. Bhatia, G. Garzone, & C. Degano (Eds). Arbitration Awards. Generic Features and Textual Realisations (pp. 152–170). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santulli, F. (2008). La sentenza come genere testuale: narrazione, argomentazione, performatività. In G. Garzone & F. Santulli (Eds). Il linguaggio giuridico. Prospettive interdisciplinari (pp. 207–238). Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Modality in Italian judgements. In F. Poppi & W. Cheng (Eds), The Three Waves of Globalization (pp. 123–141). Cambridge Scholars Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2008). Wordsmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stati, S. (2002). Principi di analisi argomentativa. Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuzet, G. (2013). Conflict or Dialogue? Legal Argumentation and the Search for Truth. In D. Pirazzini & A. Schiemann, Dialogizität in der Argumentation (pp. 107–130), Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Nikitina, Jekaterina
2023. COVID-19-Related Cases before the European Court of Human Rights: A Multiperspective Approach. Lingue Culture Mediazioni - Languages Cultures Mediation (LCM Journal) 9:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue