2015
Institutional Constraints of Topical Strategic Maneuvering in Legal Argumentation. The Case of ‘Insulting’ .
Publication
Publication
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
Additional Metadata | |
---|---|
hdl.handle.net/1765/79890 | |
Kloosterhuis, H. (2015). Institutional Constraints of Topical Strategic Maneuvering in Legal Argumentation. The Case of ‘Insulting’ . In Bustamante, Thomas & Dahlman, Christian (Eds.), Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation. Springer, 2015 (pp. 67–75). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/79890 |