Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse

doi:10.1017/9781108954105.027

25 - Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse

from Part II - Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021

Anita Fetzer and

Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka

Edited by

Michael Haugh ,

Dániel Z. Kádár and

Marina Terkourafi

Show author details

Michael Haugh: Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár: Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi: Affiliation:
Leiden University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter examines the contextual constraints and requirements of argumentative, political and legal discourse, focusing on their bridging points as well as on where they depart. While political discourse and legal discourse are representatives of public discourse and institutional discourse with political discourse also constituting media discourse, argumentative discourse can be found across various discourse domains ranging from political and legal discourse to mundane, everyday talk. The first part provides an analysis of the pragmatics of argumentative discourse, concentrating on the communicative function of argumentative strategies and their generalized and particularized realizations across different discourse domains. The second part examines political discourse as communicative action considering the multilayeredness of production and reception formats, and the third part gives an analysis of legal discourse. In the final part the strategic use of argumentative strategies is discussed in the context of political and legal discourse.

Keywords

legal discourse political discourse institutional discourse context

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 520 - 543

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.027 [Opens in a new window]

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

Adone, C. (2017). The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. In van Eemeren, F., ed., Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 53–70.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ainsworth, J. (2008). “You have the right to remain silent …” but only if you ask for it just so: The role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 15(1), 1–22.CrossRef Google Scholar

Alston, W. P. (2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Anscombre, J.-C. and Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar

Aristotle, . (2007). Aristotle: On Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Edited by Kennedy, G. A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Atifi, H. and Marcoccia, M. (2015). Follow-ups and dialogue in online discussions on French politics: From internet forums to social TV. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Berlin, L. N., eds., The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–40.Google Scholar

Atifi, H. and Marcoccia, M. (2017). The fabrication of ordinary people in French media discourse: when ordinary people are not only ordinary. Paper presented at the 15th IPRA conference, Panel on Constructing ordinariness across media genres, organized by E. Weizman and A. Fetzer, Belfast, June.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2000). Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Szabó. Mind and Language, 15, 262–83.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bull, P. and Wells, P. (2012). Adversarial discourse in Prime Minister’s questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(1), 30–48.Google Scholar

Charrow, R. P. and Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–74.Google Scholar

Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cohen, P., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E. (eds.). (1991). Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review, 14, 445–564.Google Scholar

Dascal, M. and Wróblewski, J. (1991). The rational law-maker and the pragmatics of legal interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 421–44.Google Scholar

Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ehrlich, S., Eades, D. and Ainsworth, J. (eds.). (2016). Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Elliott, D. C. (1989). Constitutions in a Modern Setting – the Language of the Practice of Law. A paper presented at Lawasia Conference, Hong Kong, September. www.davidelliott.ca/papers/lawasia.htm#section9.Google Scholar

Endicott, T. A. O. (2000). Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and Globalization. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2000). Negotiating validity claims in political interviews. Text, 20(4), 1–46.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2002). Communicative intentions in context. In Fetzer, A. and Meierkord, C., eds., Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–69.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2013). The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse. In Fetzer, A., ed., The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2015). ‘When you came into office you said that your government would be different’: Forms and functions of quotations in mediated political discourse. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Berlin, L. N., eds., The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2017). The dynamics of discourse: Quantity meets quality. In Cap, P. and Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–57.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2018a). Discourse pragmatics: Communicative action meets discourse analysis. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–57.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. (2018b). ‘Our Chief Political Editor reads between the lines of the Chancellor’s Budget speech’: The strategic exploitation of conversational implicature in mediated political discourse. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 29–54.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E. (2006). Political discourse as mediated and public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(2), 143–53.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. and Bull, P. (2008). ‘Well, I answer it by simply inviting you to look at the evidence’: The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews. Journal of Language and Politics, 7(2), 271–89.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E. (2015). Introduction. In Weizman, E. and Fetzer, A., eds., Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. vii–xvii.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E. (2018). “What I would say to John and everyone like John is …”: The construction of ordinariness through quotations in mediated political discourse (with E. Weizman). Discourse and Society, 29(5), 1–19.Google Scholar

Fetzer, A. and Bull, P. (2019). Quoting ordinary people in Prime Minister’s Questions. In Fetzer, A. and Weizman, E., eds., The Construction of Ordinariness across Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73-101.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1994). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Garssen, B. (2017). The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In van Eemeren, F., ed., Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–51.Google Scholar

Gauker, C. (1994). Thinking Out Loud. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gauker, C. (2007). On the alleged priority of thought over language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., John Searle’s Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning, and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–42.Google Scholar

Gauker, C. (2008). Zero tolerance for pragmatics. Synthese, 165, 359–71.Google Scholar

Gauker, C. (2011). Words and Images: An Essay on the Origin of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–52.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. (1996). The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 374–406.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1987). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. (1948–9). The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 49, 171–94.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. ([1961] 1994). The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hutton, C. (2009). Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Joos, M. (1961). The Five Clocks: A Linguistic Excursion into the Five Styles of English Usage. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar

Korta, K. and Perry, J. (2007). How to say things with words. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., John Searle’s Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning, and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–89.Google Scholar

Korta, K. and Perry, J. (2011). Critical Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kukla, R. and Lance, M. (2009). ‘Yo!’ and ‘Lo!’: The Pragmatic Topography of the Space of Reasons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kurzon, D. (1997). ‘Legal language’: varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 119–39.Google Scholar

Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22, 305–30.Google Scholar

Larsson, S. (2011). Metaphors and Norms: Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar

Lauerbach, G. and Fetzer, A. (2007). Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives. In Fetzer, A. and Lauerbach, G. E., eds., Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar

Livingstone, S. and Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Livnat, Z. (2012). Follow-ups in a loose argumentative context: The pragmatic effectiveness of figurative analogy. In Fetzer, A., Weizman, E. and Reber, E., eds., Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-Ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May–2 June 2012. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg, pp. 165–77. http://opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/6116.Google Scholar

MacKinnon, C. (1989). Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

MacKinnon, C. (1991). Pornography as defamation and discrimination. Boston University Law Review, 71, 793–815.Google Scholar

MacKinnon, C. (1993). Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Millikan, R. G. (2004). Varieties of Meaning. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Millikan, R. G. (2005). Language: A Biological Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Neale, S. (2007). On location. In O’Rourke, M. and Washington, C., eds., Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–393.Google Scholar

Reinach, A. ([1913]1983). The a priori foundations of civil law. Translated by Crosby, John. Aletheia, 3, 1–142.Google Scholar

Scannell, P. (1998). Media-language-world. In Bell, A. and Garrett, P., eds., Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 252–67.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1991). Conversation revisited. In Searle, J. R., Parret, H. and Verschueren, J., eds., (On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–47.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1996). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359–93.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sugarman, D. and Hart, H. L. A. (2005). Hart interviewed: H.L.A. Hart in conversation with David Sugarman (interview 1988). Journal of Law and Society, 32, 267–93.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. M. and Solan, L. M. (2004). Cops and robbers: Selective literalism in American criminal law. Law and Society Review, 38(2), 229–66.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. (ed.). (2017). Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. (2017). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In van Eemeren, F., ed., Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 7–29.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, F. and Grootendorst, R. (1995). Argumentation theory. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O. and Blommaert, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar

Walker, A. (1985). The two faces of silence: The effect of witness hesitancy on lawyers’ impressions. In Tannen, D. and Saville-Troike, M., eds., Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 55–75.Google Scholar

Weizman, E. and Fetzer, A. (2018). Constructing ordinariness in online journals: A corpus-based study in the Israeli context. Israel Studies in Language and Society, 11(1), 22–48.Google Scholar

Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2007). Language, Law and Speech Acts: Pragmatic Meaning in English Legal Texts. Łódź: WSSM.Google Scholar

Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2009a). A linguistic-pragmatic note on legal indeterminacy in legal language. Linguistica Copernicana, 1, 231–43.Google Scholar

Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2009b). A note on legal discourse semantics and J.L. Austin’s theory of speech acts. In Dynel, M., ed., Advances in Discourse Approaches. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 92–111.Google Scholar

Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2013a). From Speech Acts to Speech Actions. Łódź: Łódź University Press.Google Scholar

Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2013b). Speech action in legal contexts. In Sbisa, M. and Turner, K., eds., Pragmatics of Speech Actions, Handbook of Pragmatics Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 613–58.Google Scholar

Wojtczak, S., Witczak-Plisiecka, I. and Augustyn, R. (2017). Metafory konceptualne jako narzędzia rozumowania i poznania prawniczego [Conceptual metaphors as instruments of legal cognition and reasoning]. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Edited by Ogden, C. K. and Paul, K.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. ([1953] 1958). Philosophical Investigations. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wróblewski, J. (1985). Legal language and legal interpretation. Law and Philosophy, 4, 239–55.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

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