Chapter 8
Context and genre in judicial argumentation
A case-study
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)
Amossy, R.
(
2006)
L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris: Colin.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Amossy, R.
(
2009)
The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance. Argumentation and Discourse Analysis.
Argumentation, 23 (3), 313–324.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bellucci, P.
(
2002)
A onor del vero. Torino: UTET.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bonnafous, S., & Tourier, M.
(
1995)
Analyse du discours, lexicometrie, communication et politique.
Langage, 117, 68–81.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dahlman, C., & Feteris, E.
(Eds) (
2012)
Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Degano, C.
(
2007)
Presupposition and dissociation in discourse: a corpus study.
Argumentation, 21, 361–378.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Degano, C.
(
2008)
Discorsi di guerra. Milano: Led edizioni universitarie.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Degano, C.
(
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Degano, C.
(
2012)
Discourse Analysis, Argumentation Theory and Corpora: An Integrated Approach. Milano: Arcipelago Edizioni.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, F. H. van
(
2001)
In context.
Argumentation, 25, 141–161.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(
2006)
Strategic maneuvering. A synthetic recapitulation.
Argumentation, 20, 381–392.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feteris, E.
(
1999)
Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Legal Decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feteris, E.
(
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Freedman, A., & Medway, P.
(
1994)
Genres and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Golden, J., & Pilotta, J.
(Eds) (
1986)
Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Dordrecht: Reidel.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grize, J-B.
(
1990)
Logique et langage. Paris: Ophrys.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haack, S.
(
2004)
Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law.
Ratio juris, 17, 15–26.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haarscher, G.
(Ed.) (
1993)
Chaim Perelman et la pensée contemporaine. Bruxelles: Bruylant.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hardt-Mautner, G.
(
1995)
Only connect. Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics. Lancaster: Technical Papers.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maingueneau, D.
(
2007)
Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Colin.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maraschio, N., & De Martino, D.
(Eds) (
2012)
Fuori l’italiano dall’università? Inglese, internazionalizzazione, politica linguistica. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzi, D.
(
2007)
The Linguistic Study of Judicial Argumentation: Theoretical Perspectives Analytical Insights. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzi, D.
(
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mortara Garavelli, B.
(
2001)
Le parole e la giustizia. Torino: Einaudi.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Partington, A., Morley, J., & Haarman, L.
(Eds) (
2004)
Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perelman, C.
(
1976)
Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Dalloz.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(
1958)
Traité de l’argumentation. La Nouvelle Réthorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Plantin, C.
(
1996)
L’argumentation. Paris: Seuil.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Santulli, F.
(
2013)
Modality in Italian judgements. In
F. Poppi &
W. Cheng (Eds),
The Three Waves of Globalization (pp. 123–141). Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scott, M.
(
2008)
Wordsmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stati, S.
(
2002)
Principi di analisi argomentativa. Bologna: Pàtron.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 june 2024. 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.