“Our reading would lead to…”
Corpus perspectives on pragmatic argumentation in US Supreme Court judgments
Of the various subtypes of causal argumentation, one that has been sparking the interest of a large number of scholars across various contexts is pragmatic argumentation. This paper aims at undertaking an exploratory study of discursive indicators of pragmatic argumentation in a synchronic corpus of judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The study began with a qualitative overview to be followed by a more quantitative investigation, in which discursive indicators of pragmatic argumentation were lemmatized and searched for at a corpus level. Data show both the tendency of lemmas to occur within larger patterns, and the way these are correlated with an outline of both desirable and undesirable consequences the judge may draw the attention to. Findings thus appear to offer food for thought in the three largely interrelated areas of argumentation, discourse studies and legal theory.
References (21)
Alexy, Robert. 1989. A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Clarendon Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aristotele. 1980. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated with an introduction by David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bell, John. 1989. “Policy Arguments in Statutory Interpretation.” In Legal Reasoning and Statutory Interpretation, ed. by Jan van Dunné, 55–79. Arnhem: Gouda Quint.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bustamante, Thomas. 2013. “On the Argumentum ad Absurdum in Statutory Interpretation: Its Uses and Normative Significance.” In Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Christian Dahlman, and Eveline T. Feteris, 21–44. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carbonell, Flavia. 2013. “Reasoning by Consequences: Applying Different Argumentation Structures to the Analysis of Consequentialist Reasoning in Judicial Decisions.” In Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Christian Dahlman, and Eveline T. Feteris, 1–20. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chong, Dennis, and James Druckman. 2006. “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments.” Journal of Communication 571: 99–118.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feteris, Eveline T. 2002. “A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.” Argumentation 161: 349–367. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ihnen Jory, Constanza. 2012. Pragmatic Argumentation in Law-Making Debates: Instruments for the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation at the Second Reading of the British Parliament. Doctoral dissertation, Amsterdam: Sic Sat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzi, Davide. 2012b. “‘Such a Reaction Would Spread all over the Cell like a Forest Fire’: A Corpus Study of Argument by Analogy in Scientific Discourse.” In Insights into Academic Genres, ed. by Carol Berkenkotter, Vijay K. Bhatia, and Maurizio Gotti, 89–105. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miglioli, Franco. 1995. “The United States of America.” In Legal English, ed. by Giuliana Garzone, Franco Miglioli, and Rita Salvi, 193–328. Milan: Egea.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scott, Mike. 2008. WordSmith Tools 5.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, John. 1996. “The Search for Units of Meaning.” Textus 91: 75–106.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, John. 1998. “The Lexical Item.” In Contrastive Lexical Semantics, ed. by Edda Weigand, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, John. 2004. Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies in Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Summers, Robert. 1991. “Statutory Interpretation in the United States.” In Interpreting Statutes, ed. by Neil MacCormick, and Robert Summers, 407–459. Aldershot: Dartmouth.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Dundon, John Terry
2024.
Language ideologies and speaker categorization: a case study from the U.S. legal system.
International Journal of Legal Discourse 9:1
► pp. 169 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
McKeown, Jamie
2021.
A corpus-based examination of reflexive metadiscourse in majority and dissent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Journal of Pragmatics 186
► pp. 224 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.