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-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T10:59:11.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse

from Part II - Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

By
Anita Fetzer  and
Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka
Edited by
Michael Haugh ,
Dániel Z. Kádár  and
Marina Terkourafi
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
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 discoursepolitical discourseinstitutional discoursecontext
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 520 - 543
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.)

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

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
×