Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-rbv74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T22:44:36.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

Douglas Walton ,
Fabrizio Macagno  and
Giovanni Sartor
Douglas Walton
Affiliation:
University of Windsor, Ontario
Fabrizio Macagno
Affiliation:
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Giovanni Sartor
Affiliation:
Università di Bologna
Get access

Summary

In our previous chapter on ambiguity, we underscored how the logical form of a legal statement does not provide the proposition expressed. The meaning of an utterance – the product of a verbal act performed in a specific context (Leech 1983, 14) – cannot be the simple output of a decoding process (Sperber and Wilson 1995, 182; Recanati 2003, 56), or “semantic interpretation” (Leech 1983, 5). The logical form (also called “semantic representation”) that can be recovered through the mere decoding of an utterance through the application of the rules of grammar (Sperber and Wilson 1995, 9–10) does not deliver complete propositions, but only “semantic schemata” (Recanati 2003, 56).

Type
Chapter
Information
Statutory Interpretation
Pragmatics and Argumentation
 , pp. 157 - 204
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

Asher, Nicholas, and Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 2005. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 2007. “Meanings, propositions, context, and semantical underdeterminacy.” In Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism: New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics, edited by Preyer, Gerhard and Peter, Georg, 217–239. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 2008. “Presupposition.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Horn, Laurence and Ward, Gregory, 29–52. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David, and Levinson, Stephen. 1981. “It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version).” In Radical Pragmatics, edited by Cole, Peter, 1–62. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2006. “The top 10 misconceptions about implicature.” In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, edited by Birner, Betty and Ward, Gregory, 21–30. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 1838. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Part IV. Edinburgh, UK: William Tait.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 1997. “Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction.” Mind 106(423): 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/106.423.375.Google Scholar
Brewer, Scott. 2011. Logic, Probability, and Presumptions in Legal Reasoning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Brian. 2016a. “Law and the primacy of pragmatics.” In Pragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Capone, Alessandro and Poggi, Francesca, 1–13. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Butler, Brian. 2016b. “Transparency and context in legal communication: Pragmatics and legal interpretation.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, edited by Capone, Alessandro and Mey, Jacob, 517–535. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capone, Alessandro. 2010. “On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes).” Journal of Pragmatics 42(2): 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013.Google Scholar
Capone, Alessandro. 2016. “The role of pragmatics in (re)constructing the rational law-maker.” In Pragmatics and Law. Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Capone, Alessandro and Poggi, Francesca, 141–157. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1988. “Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics.” In Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, edited by Kempson, Ruth, 155–181. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2013. “Legal texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory.” In Law and Language: Current Legal Issues, edited by Freeman, Michael and Smith, Fiona, 15: 8–33. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert, and Brennan, Susan. 1991. “Grounding in communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by Resnick, Lauren, Levine, John, and Teasley, Stephanie, 127–149. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 2003. Interpretation and Understanding. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo, and Jerzy, Wróblewski. 1988. “Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law.” Law and Philosophy 7(2): 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144156.Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne. 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne. 2007a. “Grice’s meaning project.” Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 41–58.Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne. 2007b. “How normative is implicature.” Journal of Pragmatics 39(10): 1655–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.006.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank. 1984. “Legal interpretation and the power of the judiciary.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 7: 87–99.Google Scholar
Endicott, Timothy. 2010. “Law and language.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-language/Google Scholar
Everardus, Nicolaus. 1601. Loci Argumentorum Legales. Venice, Italy: Matthaeum Valentinum.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon. 1957. “Positivism and fidelity to law – A reply to Professor Hart.” Harvard Law Review 71(4): 630–672.Google Scholar
Gama, Raymundo. 2017. “The nature and the place of presumptions in law and legal argumentation.” Argumentation 31: 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9417-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifis, Steven. 2010. Law Dictionary. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 2015. Interpreting the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Abner. 2006. “The missing step of textualism.” Fordham Law Review 74(4): 1913–1936.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guastini, Riccardo. 2011. Interpretare e Argomentare. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. 1997. Reasoning with Rules. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1965. “The inference to the best explanation.” The Philosophical Review 74(1): 88–95.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1992. “Inference to the best explanation (review).” Mind 101(403): 578–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/101.403.578.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy, and Hutton, Christopher. 2007. Definition in Theory and Practice: Language, Lexicography and the Law. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1984. “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature.” In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, edited by Schiffring, Deborah, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1995. “Vehicles of meaning: Unconventional semantics and unbearable interpretation.” Washington University Law Quarterly 73: 1145–1152.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2009. “WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning.” International Review of Pragmatics 1: 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2014. Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutton, Christopher. 2009. Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Jackson, Sally. 2006. “Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango.” In Considering Pragma-Dialectics, edited by Houtlosser, Peter and van Rees, Agnes, 121–133. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2006. “Meaning merger: Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality.” Intercultural Pragmatics 3(2): 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.012.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Jeffrey. 2019. Linguistics and Law. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Jeffrey, and Green, Georgia. 1995. “Grammar and inferences of rationality in interpreting the Child Pornography Statute.” Washington University Law Review 73: 1223–1251.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Jeffrey, Green, Georgia, Cunningham, Clark, and Levi, Judith. 1995. “Bringing linguistics into judicial decisionmaking: Semantic analysis submitted to the US Supreme Court.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 2(1): 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v2i1.81,Google Scholar
Kauffeld, Fred. 1998. “Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing.” Argumentation 12(2): 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007704116379.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, Fred. 2003. “The ordinary practice of presuming and presumption with special attention to veracity and the burden of proof.” In Anyone with a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, edited by van Eemeren, Frans, Blair, Anthony, Willard, Charles, and Snoeck-Henkemans, Francisca, 133–146. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and Zhang, Fenghui. 2009. “Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2): 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Duncan. 2007. “A left phenomenological critique of the Hart/Kelsen theory of legal interpretation.” Kritische Justiz 40(3): 296–305.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2012. “Sentences, utterances, and speech acts.” In Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia, 169–190. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen 1992. “Activity types and language.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by Drew, Paul and Heritage, John, 66–100. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1995. “Three levels of meaning.” In Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, edited by Palmer, Frank, 90–115. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2011. “The presumptions of meaning. Hamblin and equivocation.” Informal Logic 31(4): 367–393 . https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v31i4.3326.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2012. “Presumptive reasoning in interpretation. Implicatures and conflicts of presumptions.” Argumentation 26(2): 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011–9232-9.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Bigi, Sarah. 2017. “Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues.” Discourse Studies 19(2): 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Capone, Alessandro. 2016. “Interpretative disputes, explicatures, and argumentative reasoning.” Argumentation 30(4): 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015–9347-5.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2012. “Presumptions in legal argumentation.” Ratio Juris 25(3): 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9337.2012.00514.x.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2013. “Implicatures as forms of argument.” In Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, edited by Capone, Alessandro, Piparo, Franco Lo, and Carapezza, Marco, 203–225. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2014. Emotive Language in Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2015. “Classifying the patterns of natural arguments.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 48(1): 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2015.0005.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2017. Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, Walton, Douglas, and Sartor, Giovanni. 2014. “Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation.” In Proceedings of JURIX 2014: The Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, edited by Hoekstra, Rinke, 11–20. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1995. “Argumentation and interpretation in law.” Argumentation 9(3): 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil, and Summers, Robert, eds. 1991. Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Manning, John. 2003. “The absurdity doctrine.” Harvard Law Review 116(8): 2387–2486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, Joseph. 1973. “Meaning, speakers’ intentions, and speech acts.” The Review of Metaphysics 26(4): 681–695.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2008. “The pragmatics of legal language.” Ratio Juris 21(4): 423–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9337.2008.00400.x.Google Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2011. “Can the law imply more than it says? On some pragmatic aspects of strategic speech.” In Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law, edited by Marmor, Andrei and Soames, Scott, 83–104. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2014. The Language of Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 1997. “Vers une lnguistique sens-texte.” In Leçon Inaugurale, Collège de France, Chaire Internationale. http://olst.ling.umontreal.ca/pdf/MelcukColldeFr.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miller, Geoffrey. 1990. “Pragmatics and the maxims of interpretation.” University of Wisconsin Law, 1179–1227.Google Scholar
Morra, Lucia. 2016a. “Conversational implicatures in normative texts.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, edited by Capone, Alessandro and Mey, Jacob, 537–562. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Morra, Lucia. 2016b. “Widening the Gricean picture to strategic exchanges.” In Pragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Capone, Alessandro and Poggi, Francesca, 201–229. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Neale, Stephen. 1992. “Paul Grice and the philosophy of language.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15(5): 509–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630629.Google Scholar
Oaksford, Mike, and Chater, Nick. 1998. Rationality in an Uncertain World: Essays on the Cognitive Science of Human Reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, Dennis. 2005. “Interpretation in law.” San Diego Law Review 42: 685–710.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim. 1976. Logique Juridique. Paris, France: Dalloz.Google Scholar
Poggi, Francesca. 2011. “Law and conversational implicatures.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 24(1): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9201-x.Google Scholar
Pollock, John. 1987. “Defeasible reasoning.” Cognitive Science 11(4): 481–518. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4.Google Scholar
Prakken, Henry, and Sartor, Giovanni. 1996. “A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118496Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2003. Literal Meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 2006. Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant, and Slembrouck, Stefaan. 1992. “Non-cooperation in communication: A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 17(2): 117–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90037-C.Google Scholar
Saul, Jennifer M. 2002. “Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated.” Nous 36(2): 228–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468–0068.00369.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin. 1998. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin, and Garner, Bryan. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 1972. Meaning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger. 2011. The Language of Perjury Cases. New York, NY:: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2013. “On the conversational basis of some presuppositions.” In Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 2, edited by Capone, Alessandro, Piparo, Franco Lo, and Carapezza, Marco, 329–348. Cham, Switzerland:Springer.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Michael. 1985. “Law and language: The role of pragmatics in statutory interpretation.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 46: 373–420.Google Scholar
Skoczeń, Izabela. 2016. “Minimal semantics and legal interpretation.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 29(3): 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9448-3.Google Scholar
Skoczeń, Izabela. 2019. Implicatures within Legal Language. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Slocum, Brian. 2016a. “Conversational implicatures and legal texts.” Ratio Juris 29(1): 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12114.Google Scholar
Slocum, Brian. 2016b. Ordinary Meaning: A Theory of the Most Fundamental Principle of Legal Interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smolka, Jennifer, and Pirker, Benedikt. 2016. “International law and pragmatics. An account of interpretation in international law.” International Journal of Language & Law 5: 1–40. https://doi.org/10.14762/jll.2016.001.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2009. “Interpreting legal texts: What is, and what is not, special about the law.” In Philosophical Essays, 1: 403–424. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2011. “Toward a theory of legal interpretation.” NYU Law School Journal of Law and Liberty 6: 231–259.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence. 2002. “The Clinton scandal: Some legal lessons from linguistics.” In Language in the Legal Process, edited by Cotterill, Janet, 180–195. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence, and Tiersma, Peter. 2005. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Tarello, Giovanni. 1980. L’interpretazione della Legge. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. 1990. “The language of perjury: Literal truth, ambiguity, and the false statement requirement.” Southern California Law Review 63: 373.431.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, Rieke, Richard, and Janik, Allan. 1984. An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1995. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning.Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2011. “Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies.” Synthese 179(3): 377–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9657-y.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2016. Argument Evaluation and Evidence. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2007. “Types of dialogue, dialectical relevance and textual congruity.” Anthropology & Philosophy 8(1–2): 101–119.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2009. “Reasoning from classifications and definitions.” Argumentation 23(1): 81–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008–9110-2.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2016. “Profiles of dialogue for relevance.” Informal Logic 36(4): 523–556. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i4.4586.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Reed, Christopher, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Sartor, Giovanni, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2016. “An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 24(1): 51–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016–9179-0.Google Scholar
Weinstock, Charles B., Goodenough, John B., and Klein, Ari Z.. 2013. “Measuring assurance case confidence using Baconian probabilities.” In 2013 1st International Workshop on Assurance Cases for Software-Intensive Systems (ASSURE), 7–11. San Francisco, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2005. “New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity.” Lingua 115(8): 1129–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.005.Google Scholar
Ziff, Paul. 1967. “On HP Grice’s account of meaning.” Analysis 28(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/28.1.1.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Bond v. United States 2011 564 U.S. 211.

Dunnachie v. Kingston-upon-Hull City Council 2004 UKHL 36.

Garner v. Burr [1951] 1 KB 31.

Nix v. Hedden 1893 149 U.S. 304.

Smith v. United States 1993 508 U.S. 223.

United States v. Bronston 1971 453 F.2d 555.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×