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-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T06:31:04.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Arguments of Statutory Interpretation and Argumentation Schemes

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

As shown in the previous chapters, interpretation is at the crossroad between linguistics – and in particular pragmatics – and legal theory. When we analyzed the relationship between the Gricean and neo-Gricean pragmatic frameworks and the instruments used in legal interpretation, we pointed out the role of presumptions and defeasibility in assessing the strength of an interpretation. In this perspective, pragmatic maxims and interpretative canons are both useful tools for justifying an interpretation, but alone do not provide any criteria for establishing the superiority of an argument – and consequently of a justified interpretation – over another. In our previous chapter, we pointed out how a hierarchy of presumptions based on their defeasibility conditions can guide the process of assessment. In this view, the less defeasible arguments are those that are based on specific presumptions, namely defeasible generalizations linking an interpretation to specific features of a text or co-text.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Statutory Interpretation
Pragmatics and Argumentation
 , pp. 205 - 279
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

Amerio, Lucilla. 2019. “La responsabilità ex art. 57 c.p. del direttore di testate telematiche: tra estensione interpretativa ed analogia in malam partem.” Media Laws (2): 283–292.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1991a. “Posterior analytics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. I, edited by Barnes, Jonathan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1991b. “Prior analytics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. I, edited by Barnes, Jonathan. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1991c. “Rhetoric.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. II, edited by Barnes, Jonathan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1991d. “Topics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. I, edited by Barnes, Jonathan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ashley, Kevin. 1991. “Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6): 753–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020–7373(91)90011-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, Kevin. 2006. “Case-based reasoning.” In Information Technology and Lawyers, edited by Lodder, Arno R. and Oskamp, Anja, 26–60. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Ashley, Kevin, and Edwina, Rissland. 2003. “Law, learning and representation.” Artificial Intelligence 150(1): 17–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00109-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 1989. Philosophy without Ambiguity: A Logico-Linguistic Essay. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David. 2005. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David, and Stephen, Levinson. 1981. “It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version).” In Radical Pragmatics, edited by Peter, Cole, 1–62. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack. 2018. “Arguing about the constitution: The topics in constitutional interpretation.” Constitutional Commentary 33: 145–255.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Henry, Prakken. 2010. “Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2): 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010–9094–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, Michael. 2005. “Defeaters and higher‐level requirements.” The Philosophical Quarterly 55(220): 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-8094.2005.00408.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Otto. 1962. “The tradition of the logical topics: Aristotle to Ockham.” Journal of the History of Ideas 23(3): 307–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708069.Google Scholar
Bochenski, Innocent Marie-Joseph. 1974. “An analysis of authority.” In Authority, edited by Frederick, Adelman, 58–65. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Brannon, Valerie. 2018. Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Brewer, Scott. 2018. “Indefeasible analogical argument.” In Analogy and Exemplary Reasoning in Legal Discourse, edited by Hendrik, Kaptein and van der Velden, Bastiaan, 33–48. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Canale, Damiano, and Giovanni Tuzet. 2009. “The a simili argument: An inferentialist setting.” Ratio Juris 22(4): 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9337.2009.00437.x.Google Scholar
Canale, Damiano, and Tuzet, Giovanni. 2018. “Analogical reasoning and extensive interpretation.” In Analogy and Exemplary Reasoning in Legal Discourse, edited by Kaptein, Hendrik and van der Velden, Bastiaan, 65–86. Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
Chiassoni, Pierluigi, Feteris, Eveline, and Kreuzbauer, Hanna Maria. 2016. “Taking stock of the past: Rhetoric, topics, hermeneutics.” In A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, edited by Pattaro, Enrico and Roversi, Corrado, 1693–1713. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 2003. Topica, edited by Tobias Reinhardt. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colombo, Giovanna Maria. 2003. Sapiens Aequitas: L’Equità nella Riflessione Canonistica tra i Due Codici. Rome, Italy: Pontificia Università Gregoriana.Google Scholar
Copi, Irving, and Burgess-Jackson, Keith. 1992. Informal Logic. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Damele, Giovanni. 2011. “Rhetoric and persuasive strategies in high courts’ decisions: Some remarks on the recent decisions of the Portuguese Tribunal Constitutional and the Italian Corte Costituzionale on same-sex marriage.” In Argumentation, edited by Araszkiewicz, Michał, Myška, Matej, Smejkalová, Terezie, Šavelka, Jaromír, and Škop, Martin, 81–93. Brno, Czech Republic: Masarykova UP.Google Scholar
Damele, Giovanni. 2016. “Adventures of a metaphor. Apian imagery in the history of political thought.” In Metaphor and Communication, edited by Gola, Elisabetta and Ervas, Francesca, 173–188. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley. 1982. “Artificial intelligence and philosophy of science: Reasoning by analogy in theory construction.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 147–165. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 2003. Interpretation and Understanding. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo, and Wróblewski, Jerzy. 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
de Pater, Wilhelmus. 1965. Les Topiques d’Aristote et la Dialectique Platonicienne. Fribourg, Germany: Éditions de St. Paul.Google Scholar
De Sloovere, Frederick, 1936. “Contextual interpretation of statutes.” Fordham Law Review 5(2): 219–239.Google Scholar
Dickerson, Reed. 1975. The Interpretation and Application of Statutes. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.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
Everardus, Nicolaus. 1601. Loci Argumentorum Legales. Venice, Italy: Matthaeum Valentinum.Google Scholar
Focarelli, Carlo. 2012. International Law as Social Construct: The Struggle for Global Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friesen, Jeffrey. 1996. “When common law courts interpret civil codes.” Wisconsin International Law Journal 15: 1–27.Google Scholar
Genesereth, Michael. 1980. “Metaphors and models.” In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 208–211. Stanford, CA: Morgan-Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1980. The Structure of Analogical Models in Science. Cambridge, UK: Bolt Beranek and Newman.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 1985. “Notes towards a theory of text coherence.” Poetics Today 6(4): 699–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/1771962.Google Scholar
Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz. 1990. “The burden of argumentation in legal disputes.” Ratio Juris 3(1): 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9337.1990.tb00075.x.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam, and Boaz, Keysar. 1990. “Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity.” Psychological Review 97(1): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3.Google Scholar
Godden, David, and Walton, Douglas. 2006. “Argument from expert opinion as legal evidence: Critical questions and admissibility criteria of expert testimony in the American legal system.” Ratio Juris 19(3): 261–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9337.2006.00331.x.Google Scholar
Gold, Andrew. 2006. “Absurd results, scrivener’s errors, and statutory interpretation.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 75: 25–86.Google Scholar
Gordon, Thomas. 2010. “An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system.” In Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Argument, edited by Reed, Christopher and Tindale, Christopher, 145–156. London, UK: College Publications.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
Groppi, Tania, and Spigno, Irene. 2017. “The Constitutional Court of Italy.” In Comparative Constitutional Reasoning, edited by Jakab, András, Dyevre, Arthur, and Itzcovich, Giulio, 516–559. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guastini, Riccardo. 2011. Interpretare e Argomentare. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Halldén, Sören. 1960. True Love, True Humour and True Religion: A Semantic Study. Lund, Sweden: Gleerlup.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1965. “The inference to the best explanation.” The Philosophical Review 74(1): 88–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183532.Google Scholar
Hastings, Arthur. 1963. A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Evanston, IL: Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1965. “Aristotle’s logic of analogy.” The Philosophical Quarterly 15(61): 328–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218258.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1966. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1988. “Theories, family resemblances and analogy.” In Analogical Reasoning, edited by Helman, David, 317–340. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry, Stickel, Mark, Appelt, Douglas, and Martin, Paul. 1993. “Interpretation as abduction.” Artificial Intelligence 63(1–2): 69–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004–3702(93)90015–4.Google Scholar
Horovitz, Joseph. 1972. Law and Logic: A Critical Account of Legal Argument. Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, Christopher. 2009. Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2007. “The syntax-pragmatics merger: Belief reports in the theory of Default Semantics.” Pragmatics & Cognition 15(1): 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.06jas.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2008. “Psychological explanations in Gricean pragmatics and Frege’s legacy.” In Intentions, Common Ground, and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, edited by Kecskes, Istvan and Mey, Jacob, 9–45. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2011. “Salient meanings, default meanings, and automatic processing.” In Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing, edited by Jaszczolt, Kasia and Allan, Keith, 11–33. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josephson, John, and Josephson, Susan. 1996. Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Juthe, Andre. 2005. “Argument by analogy.” Argumentation 19(1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005–2314–9.Google Scholar
Kakuta, Tokuyasu, Haraguchi, Makoto, and Okubo, Yoshiaki. 1997. “A goal-dependent abstraction for legal reasoning by analogy.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 5(1–2): 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008272013974.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
Kreuzbauer, Guenther. 2008. “Topics in contemporary legal argumentation: Some remarks on the topical nature of legal argumentation in the continental law tradition.” Informal Logic 28(1): 71–85. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i1.515.Google Scholar
Langenbucher, Katja. 1998. “Argument by analogy in European law.” The Cambridge Law Journal 57(3): 481–521.Google Scholar
Levin, Samuel. 1982. “Aristotle’s theory of metaphor.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 15(1): 24–46.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1987. “Implicature explicated?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10(4): 722–723. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055473.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Anthony. 1962. “Genus, species and ordered series in Aristotle.” Phronesis 7(1): 67–90.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio 2015a. “A means-end classification of argumentation schemes.” In Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, edited by van Eemeren, Frans and Garssen, Bart, 183–201. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio 2015b. “Arguments of interpretation and argumentation schemes.” In Studies on Argumentation and Legal Philosophy. Further Steps Towards a Pluralistic Approach, edited by Manzin, Maurizio, Puppo, Federico, and Tomasi, Serena, 51–80. Trento, Italy: Università degli studi di Trento.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio 2017. “The logical and pragmatic structure of arguments from analogy.” Logique et Analyse 60(240): 465–490. https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.240.0.3254093.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio 2018. “Assessing relevance.” Lingua 210–211: 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.007.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Damele, Giovanni. 2016. “The hidden acts of definition in law – Statutory definitions and burden of persuasion.” In Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking, edited by Araszkiewicz, Michal and Pleszka, Krzysztof, 225–251. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2009. “Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 42(2): 154–182. https://doi.org/10.1353/par.0.0034.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2014a. “Argumentation schemes and topical relations.” In Language, Reason and Education, edited by Gobber, Giovanni and Rocci, Andrea, 185–216. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas. 2014b. Emotive Language in Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fabrizio, Macagno, 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. 2018. “Practical reasoning arguments: A modular approach.” Argumentation 32(4): 519–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018–9450–5.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
Macagno, Fabrizio, Walton, Douglas, and Sartor, Giovanni. 2018. “Pragmatic maxims and presumptions in legal interpretation.” Law and Philosophy 37(1): 69–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017–9306–4.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, Walton, Douglas, and Tindale, Christopher. 2014. “Analogical reasoning and semantic rules of inference.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 270(4): 419–432. https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.270.0419.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, Walton, Douglas, and Tindale, Christopher. 2017. “Analogical arguments: Inferential structures and defeasibility conditions.” Argumentation 31(2): 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016–9406–6.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1995. “Argumentation and interpretation in law.” Argumentation 9(3): 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733152.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. https://doi.org/10.2307/1342768.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. 2013. “Truth in law.” In Law and Language, edited by Freeman, Michael and Smith, Fiona, 45–61. Oxford: UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Geoffrey. 2016. “What is binding in a precedent.” In Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, edited by MacCormick, Neil and Summers, Robert, 503–518. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, Tim. 2019. “Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences.” Artificial Intelligence 267: 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007.Google Scholar
Naess, Arne. 2005a. “Precization and definition.” In The Selected Works of Arne Naess, edited by Drengson, Alan, 1403–1433. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Naess, Arne. 2005b. “Definitoid statements.” In The Selected Works of Arne Naess edited by Alan Drengson, 161–208. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1979. “The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy.” Linguistics and Philosophy 3(2): 143–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126509.Google Scholar
Ohlin, Jens David. 2016. “Is the concept of the person necessary for human rights?” In International Legal Personality, edited by Johns, Fleur, 437–478. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Patterson, Dennis. 2005. “Interpretation in law.” San Diego Law Review 42, 685–710.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm. 1980. Justice, Law and Argument. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm. 1976. Logique Juridique. Paris, France: Dalloz.Google Scholar
Pollock, John. 1984. “Reliability and justified belief.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 14(1): 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1984.10716371Google Scholar
Pollock, John. 1986. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pollock, John. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raitio, Juha. 2003. The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1980. “Conditions for text coherence.” Poetics Today 1(4): 161–180. https://doi.org/10.2307/1771893.Google Scholar
Ross, Alf. 1944. “Imperatives and logic.” Philosophy of Science 11(1): 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1086/286823.Google Scholar
Rotolo, Antonino, Governatori, Guido, and Sartor, Giovanni. 2015. “Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: Two options for modelling interpretative arguments.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 99–108. New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Rubinelli, Sara. 2009. Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Russell, Stuart. 1988. “Analogy by similarity.” In Analogical Reasoning, edited by Helman, David, 251–269. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Antonin, and Garner, Bryan. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
Schiappa, Edward. 1993. “Arguing about definitions.” Argumentation 7(4): 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00711058.Google Scholar
Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining Reality. Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Shelley, Cameron. 2003. Multiple Analogies in Science and Philosophy. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle 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
Sorensen, Roy. 1991. “Vagueness and the desiderata for definition.” In Definitions and Definability: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Fetzer, James, Shatz, David, and Schlesinger, George, 71–109. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Stump, Eleonore. 1989. Dialectic and Its Place in the Development of Medieval Logic. Ithaca, IL and London, UK: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Eleonore. 2004. Boethius’s “De topicis differentiis.” Ithaca, IL, and London, UK: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Summers, Robert. 2016. “Precedent in the United States (New York State).” In Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, edited by MacCormick, Neil and Summers, Robert, 355–406. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tarello, Giovanni. 1980. L’Interpretazione della Legge. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.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
Van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verheij, Bart. 2003. “Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions.” Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.3.319.Google Scholar
Viehweg, Theodor. 1953. Topik und Jurisprudenz: Ein Beitrag zur rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung. München, Germany: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Waller, Bruce. 2001. “Classifying and analyzing analogies.” Informal Logic 21(3): 199–218. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i3.2246.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Arguments from Ignorance. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2010. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2014. “Baseballs and arguments from fairness.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 22(4): 423–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-013–9151–1.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Koszowy, Marcin. 2015. “Two kinds of arguments from authority in the ad verecundiam fallacy.” In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation,edited by van Eemeren, Frans, Garssen, Bart, Godden, David, and Mitchell, Gordon, 1483–1492. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2009a. “Enthymemes, argumentation schemes and topics.” Logique et Analyse 52(205): 39–56.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2009b. “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. 2010. “Defeasible classifications and inferences from definitions.” Informal Logic 30(1): 34–61. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v30i1.692.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2015. “A classification system for argumentation schemes.” Argument and Computation (3): 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2015.1123772.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sartor, Giovanni. 2014. “Interpretative argumentation schemes.” In JURIX 2014: The twenty-seventh annual conference, edited by Hoekstra, Rinke, 271: 21–22. New York, NY: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Reed, Christopher, and Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Giovanni, Sartor. 2013. “Teleological justification of argumentation schemes.” Argumentation 27(2): 111–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012–9262-y.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
Weinreb, Lloyd. 2005. Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Sperber, Dan. 2004. “Relevance theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Horn, Laurence and Ward, Gregory, 607–632. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 1998. “Definitions.” In Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques, edited by Klumpp, James, 1–11. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 2006. “Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric.” Argumentation 20(4): 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007–9030–6.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Adams v. New Jersey Steamboat Co. 1896. 151 N.Y. 163.

Arnold v. Producers Fruit Co. 1900. 61 P 283.

Bank One Chicago, N.A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co. 1996. 516 U.S. 264.

Bekteshi v. Mukasey 2007. 260 F. App’x 642.

Cassazione penale, sez. III, sentenza 26/09/2008 n° 36845

Cassazione penale, sez. V, sentenza 11/01/2019 n° 1275

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams 2001. 532 U.S. 105.

Conroy v. Aniskoff 1993. 507 U.S. 511.

Corley v. United States 2009. 556 U.S. 303.

Corte Costituzionale. Sentenza n. 138/2010. ECLI:IT:COST:2010:138.

Corte Costituzionale. Sentenza n. 280/2010. ECLI:IT:COST:2010:280.

District of Columbia v. Heller 2008. 554 U.S. 570.

Garner v. Burr [1951] 1 KB 31.

Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Costeja Gonzalez 2014. ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.

Healthkeepers, Inc. v. Richmond Ambulance Authority 2011. 642 F.3d 466.

James v. United States 2007. 550 U.S. 192.

Johnson v. United States 2015. 576 U.S. 591.

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit 1992. 507 U.S. 163.

Obergefell v. Hodges 2015. 135 S. Ct. 2584.

People v. Collins 2005. 214 Ill. 2d 206.

People v. Davis 2008. 218 P.3d 718.

Popov v. Hayashi 2002. WL 31833731.

State v. Taylor 1999. 594 N.W.2d 533.

Taylor v. United States 1990. 495 U.S. 575.

United States v. Barber 2005. 360 F. Supp. 2d 784.

United States v. California 1965. 381 U.S. 139.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

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
×