The centrality of argumentation in the judicial process is an age-old acquisition of research on legal discourse. Notwithstanding the deep insights provided by legal theoretical and philosophical works, only recently has judicial argumentation been tackled in its linguistic dimension. This paper aims to contribute to the development of linguistic studies of judicial argumentation, by shedding light on evaluation as a prominent aspect in the construction of the judge’s argumentative position. Evaluation as a deep structure of judicial argumentation is studied from (...) a discursive point of view entailing the analysis of a sample of authentic judicial language. Evaluative lexis is investigated within a single genre of judicial discourse, i.e. judgments, instantiated by a corpus of US Supreme Court judgments. Findings show that judges use diversified strategies to take stance as they organise their argumentative discourse: from easily recognisable verbal and adjectival tools to more finely-grained discourse elements such as the encapsulating pattern ‘this/these/that/those + labelling noun’. (shrink)

SummaryThis contribution offers an evaluation of e contrario reasoning in which the interpretation of a legal rule is based on the context of the law system (contextual e contrario reasoning). A model is presented which will show all the explicit and implicit elements of the argument at work and will also point out how these distinct parts are interrelated. By questioning the content and justificatory power of these elements, the weak spots in the argument can be laid bare. It will (...) be argued that e contrario reasoning inevitably requires a dubious argumentative step, which renders the argument intrinsically weak. The model is applied to a European lawsuit on French cheese. (shrink)

The presence of premises expressing comparison is a problem for the Aristotelian theory of the dialectical method, first because there is no general theory of comparison in the Organon and secondly because along with propositions on the opposition and inflexion of the terms, comparative statements seem to fall outside the explicit description which Aristotle gives of possible premises. The purpose of this paper is to offer a synthetic theory of comparisons according to Aristotle’s Topics, in an attempt both to supply (...) the aforementioned absence and to highlight the importance of the second problem. There are three main types of premises on the more, the less and the similar: some comparing the degree of possession of a predicate, others comparing the plausibility of a predication and finally, others expressing an analogy. Once expounded the very marked differences that occur between these three classes of propositions, the paper analyses the various kinds of argumentation based on comparative premises and offers a formalization of its logical laws. The complexity of this theory and the volume of topoi involved in the comparisons show the magnitude of a problem that has not been sufficiently studied. (shrink)

This paper throws some light on the nature of argumentation, its use and advantages, within the setting of doctor–patient interaction. It claims that argumentation can be used by doctors to offer patients reasons that work as ontological conditions for enhancing the decision making process, as well as to preserve the institutional nature of their relationship with patients. In support of these claims, selected arguments from real-life interactions are presented in the second part of the paper, and analysed by means of (...) a model of argumentation borrowed from classical rhetoric, and refined according to the modern orientation of the pragma-dialectic approach. (shrink)

Sometimes we draw conclusions about a thing's existence or its value by considering what are thought to be its consequences. I shall say that an argument is pragmatic when it consists in estimating an action, or any event, or a rule, or whatever it may be, in terms of its favourable or unfavourable consequences; what happens in such cases is that all or part of the value of the consequences is transferred to whatever is regarded as causing or preventing them.

The purpose of the article is, firstly, to explicate and give a critical assessment of the methodological, epistemological, and philosophical foundations that led to the “rhetorical turn” in modern philosophy, and, secondly, to answer the question of how justified the grounds for such a “rhetorical turn” are. The answer proposed is based on a reconstruction of Eugene Dupréel’s critical arguments that were directed against the “classical philosophy” and their reception in Chaim Perelman’s works during his “turning point” period (1947 – (...) 1949). The article proves that these two scholars’ critique of classical philosophy proceeds from a realistic position, therefore it does not apply to the epistemological principles of idealistic philosophy. Their criticism of the classical theory of progress and the ideal of universally valid knowledge is “axiological” in nature and boils down to a reassessment of all traditional values. As a result of this reassessment, the methodological principles of sophistry (subjectivism, pragmatism, pluralism, relativism, conventionalism, etc.) are actually rehabilitated. The criticism of philosophy that appeals to spoken language and everyday knowledge, is not justified, since it is based on a misunderstanding of the conceptual and constructive nature of the philosophical language. Although the rhetorical analysis of philosophical texts should be recognized as fruitful and useful, rhetoric cannot be an instrument of philosophizing, since the interpretation of values depends on their understanding, which is given by “classical philosophy”. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est de jeter quelques lumières sur le fonctionnement de la polyphonie dans le discours et l’argumentation juridiques, en insistant sur l’importance des notions-clés d’(in)défaisabilité, de présomption, de polyphonie, d’échelle argumentative. Les premiers linéaments d’une théorie générale de l’argumentation juridique sont ici exposés (1). La théorie en question se veut topique (raisonnements défaisables) et logique (raisonnements indéfaisables). Face aux théories unidimensionnelles (réductionnisme logique ou réductionnisme topique) une théorie bidimensionnelle est souhaitable, qui inclue à la fois le (...) traitement des raisonnements défaisables et indéfaisables. Afin de développer cette esquisse de théorie de l’argumentation juridique, plusieurs notions sont définies (2): la défaisabilité (2.1), la présomption (2.2), la polyphonie (2.3), les échelles argumentatives (2.4). Enfin, un tableau général de quelques marqueurs argumentatifs résume les différents rôles que peuvent jouer les arguments dans la polyphonie du droit (3). (shrink)

The presence of premises expressing comparison is a problem for the Aristotelian theory of the dialectical method, first because there is no general theory of comparison in the Organon and secondly because along with propositions on the opposition and inflexion of the terms, comparative statements seem to fall outside the explicit description which Aristotle gives of possible premises. The purpose of this paper is to offer a synthetic theory of comparisons according to Aristotle’s Topics , in an attempt both to (...) supply the aforementioned absence and to highlight the importance of the second problem. There are three main types of premises on the more, the less and the similar : some comparing the degree of possession of a predicate, others comparing the plausibility of a predication and finally, others expressing an analogy. Once expounded the very marked differences that occur between these three classes of propositions, the paper analyses the various kinds of argumentation based on comparative premises and offers a formalization of its logical laws. The complexity of this theory and the volume of topoi involved in the comparisons show the magnitude of a problem that has not been sufficiently studied. (shrink)

The topics is a theory of argumentation based upon topoi or in Latin loci. The medieval logicians used works by Aristotle and Boethius as their sources for this doctrine, but they developed it in a rather original way. The topics became a higher-level analysis of arguments which are non-valid from a purely formal point of view, but where it is none the less legitimate to infer the conclusion from the premiss. In this connection the topics give rise to a number (...) of discussions about the form and the matter of arguments. Further the topic contribute to the elaboration of the important doctrine of the second intentions, i.e. higher-level concepts of the particular things. In some respects the topics may be said to form a link between formal and informal logic. The topics vanished as a part of logic at the end of the Middle Ages, perhaps because the medieval logicians never got rid of Boethius' claim to have compiled a complete list of the loci, which was an unlucky one. The topics does not have an exact parallel in modern formal logic, but some reflections on non-formal argumentation by recent authors contain certain resemblances to it. (shrink)

This paper aims at pointing out the normative expectations constraining political editorials. We adopt an internal perspective focusing on the process of “making” an editorial: how and why is argumentation constructed and what is at stake with it from the journalistic point of view. The focus is on the making of an editorial on David’s Cameron speech about his plans for a referendum on British membership of the European Union. Taking into account the editorial conferences where the topic is discussed (...) as well as the writing process and the verbal protocol leading to proper comments by the journalist himself on the making of the text, we analyze in detail the emergent normative expectations and the individual credos of argumentation in the editorial. (shrink)

1. Tout système juridique est production d’une histoire et d’une culture politiques déterminée, qui lui ont donné une organisation spécifique. Parler des limites de telles organisations peut s’entendre en deux sens, qui interagissent: premièrement, elles peuvent servir à différencier ces systèmes par rapport à d’autres ordres normatifs. Secondement, elles désignent ce que, par sa texture, le droit est hors d’état de réussir. 2. On comprend le concept de système comme une organisation aux structures différenciées de textes, de normes, d’acteurs. Ce (...) qui caractérise un système est son autoréférentialité et ses modes de clôture et ses modes d’ouverture. 3. Concernant la limite dans le second sens, on observera que la normativité comme mode d’action propre au droit le met souvent dans l’incapacité d’assumer pleinement les tâches de régulation qui lui sont confiées. Il s’agit d’une part d’une limite factuelle: celle de la technicité et du volume de ces tâches. D’autre part, la nécessité de plus en plus fréquente de prendre en compte les circonstances individuelles concrètes de l’application entraîne une légistique de diminution de la densité normative et, par conséquent, de déplacer une épistémologie fondée sur la répétition en direction de l’innovation. 4. Ces deux facteurs notamment font du droit un univers qui ne peut plus prétendre à une complétude cohérente: c’est un univers en constante évolution, qui exige pour sa mise en œuvre, de manière continue, l’apport d’informations provenant de son environnement. Ces apports circulent dans les modes d’ouverture du droit—la diminution de la densité normative et le recours à des expertises, des savoirs, des déontologies extérieures. Cependant, en vertu de l’autoréférentialité du droit, ces apports doivent être sélectionnés et juridicisés pour être intégrés dans le système juridique et préserver ainsi sa clôture. Il y a là une double programmation à respecter: la sélection doit d’une part respecter le cadre normatif du droit et de l’autre porter sur un choix correspondant aux attentes sociales qu’il s’agit de convaincre de son bien-fondé. Les limites du droit par rapport à d’autres ordres normatifs est ainsi définie par l’ordre juridique lui-même, dans le respect de cette double programmation. 5. Ce système a des présupposés politiques, culturels et historiques qui empêchent d’élaborer sans autre une essence du droit, valable urbi et orbi: notamment séparation des pouvoirs et liberté d’expression. Il n’est même pas certain qu’il puisse perdurer. En particulier, l’internalisation croissante du droit n’est guère conciliable avec son organisation telle que l’Occident l’a conçue. En outre, de plus en plus le droit devient l’objet d’une normativité supérieure, au nom de laquelle il est lui-même jugé: c’est le phénomène de l’économisation du droit. (shrink)

The paper aims to explore the phenomenon of the spread in democracy of new powers – produced by inexhaustible technological developments – from the perspective of the philosophy of Institutions. It traces the original idea of democracy, in which the «government of the people» arises from the conversion of natural liberty into social and political liberty, dwells on the political and juridical meaning of authority, analyses the traditional instruments used to condition human opinions and behaviours, and reconstructs – in light (...) of this itinerary – the functioning and new grammar of the digital order. What opens before us is a fluid and disorganized scenario, dominated by digital systems, algorithms and artificial intelligence, that draws the attention of philosophers and sociologists, jurists and scholars of language and of anthropology. The old single order, outlined by the political and juridical machine of the modern State – which, through an aloof and solemn language, aimed to impart regularity to human behaviour and to give society direction – is replaced by multifarious models of order, each of which is generated by its own logic, practices, and autonomous control techniques. Under the omnipotence of technology, concepts such as authority, liberty, truth and power undergo a vortex of semantic transformations that penetrate a new symbolic space into human reasoning and actions. (shrink)

A contrario reasoning (or ‘a contrario argument’ or ‘argument a contrario’) is traditionally understood as an appeal to the deliberate silence of the legislator: because a legal rule does not mention case X specifically, the rule is not applicable to it. Modern perspectives on legal reasoning often apply this label to a broader concept of reasoning, namely the reasoning by which a legal rule is not applied because of the differences between the case at hand and the one(s) mentioned in (...) the legal rule. This article first explains how the broader concept could have come into being, and then argues that from an argumentation theoretical point of view the modern concept makes no sense as a category of argumentation. Furthermore it is shown under which conditions the traditional concept can be sound. (shrink)

Usually, rhetoric is supposed to provide a model of law which describes legal interactions as volitive, arbitrary, and void of any system. However, the Mainz School, founded by Theodor Viehweg, proves the contrary: without referring to any metaphysics, such as consensus or auditoire universel, it seeks to discover the systematic character and the more or less flexible structures of legal rhetoric.

This paper introduces a multi-agent dynamic epistemic logic for abstract argumentation. Its main motivation is to build a general framework for modelling the dynamics of a debate, which entails reasoning about goals, beliefs, as well as policies of communication and information update by the participants. After locating our proposal and introducing the relevant tools from abstract argumentation, we proceed to build a three-tiered logical approach. At the first level, we use the language of propositional logic to encode states of a (...) multi-agent debate. This language allows to specify which arguments any agent is aware of, as well as their subjective justification status. We then extend our language and semantics to that of epistemic logic, in order to model individuals’ beliefs about the state of the debate, which includes uncertainty about the information available to others. As a third step, we introduce a framework of dynamic epistemic logic and its semantics, which is essentially based on so-called event models with factual change. We provide completeness results for a number of systems and show how existing formalisms for argumentation dynamics and unquantified uncertainty can be reduced to their semantics. The resulting framework allows reasoning about subtle epistemic and argumentative updates—such as the effects of different levels of trust in a source—and more in general about the epistemic dimensions of strategic communication. (shrink)

There is an argument, well known in the history of philosophy, which makes all knowledge ultimately depend on some kind of intuitive or sensory immediacy. According to this argument, either the proposition itself is self–evident; 2 or else it can be shown to follow, with the help of a chain of intermediate links, from other propositions which are self–evident. Moreover, it is this self–evidence of immediate knowledge and only this which, again speaking traditionally, sufficiently guarantees the truth of the affirmations (...) of a science as opposed to those of various and fluctuating opinions. (shrink)

This French paper is a preliminary version of P. Mongin, "Does Optimization Imply Rationality?", Synthese, 124, 2000, p. 73-111, to which readers are referred to.

This paper argues that some words are so highly charged with meaning by a community that they may prevent a discussion during which each participant is on an equal footing. These words are indeed either unanimously accepted or rejected. The presence of these adjectival groups pushes the antagonist to find rhetorical strategies to circumvent them. The main idea we want to develop is that some propositions are not easily debatable in context because of some specific value-bearing words, and one of (...) the goals of this paper is to build a methodological tool for finding and classifying these VBWs. Our study echoes the importance of “cultural keywords” in argument, but is rather based on a German approach developed by,, and about “Miranda” and “Anti-Miranda” words that is expanded and refined here. In particular, our study tries to understand why some statements, fueled by appreciative or evaluative adjectives, have such rhetorical effects on a pragmatic level in the particular context of a vote on the Swiss popular initiative called “for more affordable housing”. This context is fruitful since two parties offer reasons for two opposing policy claims: namely, to accept or to reject an initiative. When one party uses arguments containing such universally unassailable adjectival groups to defend a “yes” vote, the opposing party cannot use a symmetrical antonym while pleading for the “no” vote. The methodological tool that is proposed here could shed light on the use of certain rhetorical and referential strategies in conflicting policy proposition contexts. (shrink)

Realism has been a central object of attention among analytical philosophers for some decades. Starting from analytical philosophy, the return of realism has spread into other contemporary philosophical traditions and given birth to new trends in current discussions, as for example in the debates about “new realism.” Discussions about realism focused on linguistic meaning, epistemology, metaphysics, theory of action and ethics. The implications for politics of discussion about realism in action theory and in ethics, however, are not much discussed.