An example from the Italian Constitutional Court: The voices of justice. Argumentative polyphony and strategic manoeuvring in judgement motivations

Bletsas, Marina

doi:10.1075/aic.9.05ble

Part of

Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 9] 2015
► pp. 79–98

The voices of justice. Argumentative polyphony and strategic manoeuvring in judgement motivations

An example from the Italian Constitutional Court

Marina Bletsas | University of Bonn, Germany

Combining the ScaPoLine (Nølke, Fløttum, & Norén, 2004; Nølke, 2009, 2011, 2013) with the (extended) pragma-dialectical approach (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 2004; van Eemeren 2010), I suggest a reconstruction of judgement motivations as critical discussions between a plurality of voices conveyed even in one and the same sentence. In particular, I present some illustrative examples of polyphonic strategic manoeuvring from a landmark judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court: n. 440/1995.

Keywords: critical discussion, Italian Constitutional Court, legal discourse, polyphony, pragma-dialectics, ScaPoLine, strategic manoeuvring

Published online: 30 October 2015

https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.9.05ble

Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Palmieri, Rudi & Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati

2021. Strategic Communication with Multiple Audiences: Polyphony, Text Stakeholders, and Argumentation. International Journal of Strategic Communication 15:3 ► pp. 159 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2023. 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.