Counterfactual conditionals in argumentative legal language in Dutch
Legal argumentation is intended to resolve a difference of opinion between two or more legal parties by determining what are the facts in a case and finding an appropriate legal interpretation for these facts. Some of the discussion moves in legal argumentation take the shape of counterfactual conditionals (CTFs). CTFs are conditionals with an antecedent that is implicated to be false, not corresponding to the facts, and they occur in a number of argumentative contexts and argumentation techniques. This paper gives a structured overview of how such non-fact-based CTFs can contribute to resolving a legal and fact- centered difference of opinion. It does so by presenting a bottom-up corpus-based typology of CTFs in lawyers’ conclusions and in judgments in civil cases heard by Dutch-speaking Belgian courts of law. This typology is based on linguistic and pragmatic factors, such as the status of the facts that are referred to in the antecedent, the nature of the relation between antecedent and consequent, and the relation the CTF bears to the argumentative, situational and legal context.
Keywords: Argumentative legal language, Counterfactual conditionals, Reductio ad absurdum, Echoic antecedent, Conditio sine qua non-test, Dissociation, Causation
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 September 2008
Bocken, Hubert, and Ingrid Boone
Broda-Bahm, Kenneth T.
(2000) Arguments on what might have been: An observational analysis of counterfactual advocacy among mock jurors in deliberative and focus-group settings. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Seattle.
(2001) Your counterfactual strategy: How you can influence jurors' thoughts about 'what might have been'. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
Collins, John, Ned Hall, and Laury A. Paul
Dalcq, Roger O.
Declerck, Renaat, and Susan Reed
Fearon, James D.
Feteris, Eveline T.
Haeseryn, W., K. Romijn, G. Geerts, J. de Rooij, and M.C. van den Toorn
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky
Macrae, C. Neil, Alan B. Milne, and Riana J. Griffiths
Nivelle, Nele, and William Van Belle
(2006 in press) The use of counterfactual conditionals expressing causation in legal discourse. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Argumentation .
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
Spellman, Barbara A., and Alexandra Kincannon
Turley, Kandi Jo, Lawrence J. Sanna, and Renée L. Reiter
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
Cited by 3 other publications
Catellani, Patrizia, Mauro Bertolotti, Monia Vagni & Daniela Pajardi
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 january 2022. 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.