Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp. 245261
References
Bauw, E.
2011Wat te denken van wraking? Ars Aequi, vol. 60, issue 3, 202–206.Google Scholar
Danet, B.
1980Language in the legal process. Law & Society Review 14(3), 445–564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
2010Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & R. Grootendorst
1984Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & R. Grootendorst
1992Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, P. Houtlosser & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans
2007Argumentative indicators in Discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, J.
1999Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T.
1987The Dialectical Role of the Judge in a Dutch Legal Process, In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, 335–339, Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
2017Fundamentals Of Legal Argumentation. A Survey Of Theories On The Justification Of Judicial Decisions. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frank, J.
1990You call that a rhetorical Question? Forms and functions of rhetorical questions in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 723–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giesen, I., F. Kristen, L. Enneking & L. van Lent
2013Op weg naar een nieuwe wrakingsprocedure. Meer legitimiteit en minder oneigenlijk gebruik. (Challenging Judges: A New Procedure for Disqualification of Judges in the Netherlands?). Nederlands Juristenblad, afl 081, 466–477.Google Scholar
Hammerstein, A.
2014 ‘Onpartijdigheid in het geding’, Trema, 261, afl 51, 148–154.Google Scholar
Harris, D. J., M. O’Boyle & C. Warbrick
2014Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ilie, C.
1994What else can I tell you? A pragmatic study of English rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
1995The validity of rhetorical questions as arguments in the courtroom. In F. H van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds) Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Special fields and cases. Volume 51, 73–88. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Kloosterhuis, H.
1997The Reconstruction of Legal Analogy-Argumentation: Monological and Dialogical Approaches. OSSA Conference, Archive. 661.Google Scholar
Knapen, M.
2012Advocaten ontdekken wraking, Advocatenblad 2012, nr. 11, 18–23.Google Scholar
Lanham, R. A.
1991A handlist of rhetorical terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Loucaides, L. G.
2007The European Convention on Human Rights. Collected Essays. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E.
2006Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk, vol. 26, issue 3, 10–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plug, H. J.
1996Complex argumentation in judicial decisions. Analysing conflicting arguments. In D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach (Eds.) Practical Reasoning. International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, FAPR ’96 Bonn, Germany, June 3–7, 1996 Proceedings, 464–480, Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Maximally argumentative analysis of judicial argumentation. In Frans H. van Eemeren (Ed.) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, 261–270, Amsterdam: Sic Sat / Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.Google Scholar
2016Administrative Judicial Decisions as a Hybrid Argumentative Activity Type. Informal logic, 36 (3), 333–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
in press). The analysis of argumentation underlying complaints about a lack of judicial impartiality. In M. Manzin, F. Puppo & S. Tomasi Eds. Studies on Argumentation & Legal Philosophy. Multimodal Argumentation, Pluralism and Images in Law Trento Quaderni della Facoltà, Università di Trento
Rossum, W. van, J. Tigchelaar & P. Ippel
2012Wraking bottom-up. Een empirisch onderzoek. Den Haag: Raad voor de Rechtspraak.Google Scholar
Ruskin, W. A.
2014Effective Use Of Rhetorical Questions In Jury Summation. LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom Litigation (website).Google Scholar
Sala, M.
2010Interrogative forms as professional identity markers in legal research articles. In Garzone, G. & Archibald, J. (Eds.) Discourse, Identities and Roles in Specialized Communication, 301–320. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Radefeldt, J.
1977On so-called ’rhetorical questions’. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 375–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slot, P.
1993How Can You Say That? Rhetorical Questions in Argumentative Texts. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Smith, M. R.
2013Advanced Legal Writing. Theories and Strategies in Persuasive writing. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
2006Manoeuvring Strategically With Rhetorical Questions. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard and B. Garssen (Eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) . Amsterdam: Rozenberg. 1–11.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M.
2000Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tracy, K.
2016Discourse, Identity and Social Change in the Marriage Equality Debates. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar