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

Context and genre in judicial argumentation

A case-study

| Libera Università IULM, Milano
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.
Published online: 02 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.09san
References

References

Amossy, R.
(2006) L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
(2009) The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance. Argumentation and Discourse Analysis. Argumentation, 23 (3), 313–324. CrossrefGoogle 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
Bellucci, P.
(2002) A onor del vero. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar
Bonnafous, S., & Tourier, M.
(1995) Analyse du discours, lexicometrie, communication et politique. Langage, 117, 68–81.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, http://​www​.marges​-linguistiques​.com, 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
Dahlman, C., & Feteris, E.
(Eds) (2012) Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Degano, C.
(2007) Presupposition and dissociation in discourse: a corpus study. Argumentation, 21, 361–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Discorsi di guerra. Milano: Led edizioni universitarie.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
Degano, C. (2012) Discourse Analysis, Argumentation Theory and Corpora: An Integrated Approach. Milano: Arcipelago Edizioni.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2001) In context. Argumentation, 25, 141–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2006) Strategic maneuvering. A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feteris, E.
(1999) Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Legal Decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle 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
(2009) Strategic maneuvering in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.) Examining Argumentation in Context (pp. 93–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins, CrossrefGoogle 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
Freedman, A., & Medway, P.
(1994) Genres and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Golden, J., & Pilotta, J.
(Eds) (1986) Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grize, J-B.
(1990) Logique et langage. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Haack, S.
(2004) Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law. Ratio juris, 17, 15–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haarscher, G.
(Ed.) (1993) Chaim Perelman et la pensée contemporaine. Bruxelles: Bruylant.Google Scholar
Hardt-Mautner, G.
(1995) Only connect. Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics. Lancaster: Technical Papers.Google Scholar
Maingueneau, D.
(2007) Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Colin.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
Maraschio, N., & De Martino, D.
(Eds) (2012) Fuori l’italiano dall’università? Inglese, internazionalizzazione, politica linguistica. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Mazzi, D.
(2007) The Linguistic Study of Judicial Argumentation: Theoretical Perspectives Analytical Insights. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino.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
Mortara Garavelli, B.
(2001) Le parole e la giustizia. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Partington, A., Morley, J., & Haarman, L.
(Eds) (2004) Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Perelman, C.
(1976) Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1958) Traité de l’argumentation. La Nouvelle Réthorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Plantin, C.
(1996) L’argumentation. Paris: Seuil.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
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
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
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
(2013) Modality in Italian judgements. In F. Poppi & W. Cheng (Eds), The Three Waves of Globalization (pp. 123–141). Cambridge Scholars Publishers.Google Scholar
Scott, M.
(2008) Wordsmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.Google Scholar
Stati, S.
(2002) Principi di analisi argomentativa. Bologna: Pàtron.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