Institutional Constraints of Topical Strategic Maneuvering in Legal Argumentation. The Case of ‘Insulting’ .

Research output: Chapter/Conference proceedingChapterAcademic

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Strategic maneuvering refers to the efforts parties make to reconcile rhetorical effectiveness with dialectical standards of reasonableness. It manifests itself in topical selection, audience-directed framing and presentational devices. In analyzing strategic maneuvering one category of parameters to be considered are the constraints of the institutional context. In this paper I explore the institutional constraints for topical selection for the legal argumentative activity type insulting. I will make a distinction between statutory constraints, constraints developed in case law and constraints regarding language use and the logic of conversational implicatures
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationArgument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation
EditorsThomas Bustamante, Christian Dahlman
Place of PublicationSwitzerland
PublisherSpringer-Verlag
Pages67-75
Number of pages9
ISBN (Print)9783319161471
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Publication series

SeriesLaw and Philosophy Library
Volume112

Research programs

  • SAI 2010-01.IV RRL sub 4

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Institutional Constraints of Topical Strategic Maneuvering in Legal Argumentation. The Case of ‘Insulting’ .'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this