ABSTRACT

Integrating research methods from linguistics with contemporary legal argumentation theory, this book highlights the complexities of legal justification by focusing on the role of value-laden language in argument construction and use. The combination of linguistic analysis and the pragma-dialectic approach to legal argumentation yields a new way of perceiving and understanding the phenomenon of evaluation, one that offers theoretical and practical gains. Analyzing a vast corpus of judicial opinions from the US Supreme Court and Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, the book paints a clear picture of complex linguistic choices made by judges to assess and support arguments in the justifications of their decisions. The book will be of interest to scholars in Law, Linguistics and Rhetoric, as well as to judges and practicing lawyers engaged in the art of argumentation.

part I|32 pages

Introduction

chapter 1|13 pages

Evaluation

What is it, and why does it matter?

part II|66 pages

Evaluative language patterns as a persuasive device

chapter 3|32 pages

Evaluating processes and propositions

chapter 4|30 pages

Evaluating status and sites of contention

part III|72 pages

Uncovering evoked and less obvious evaluative meanings

chapter 6|35 pages

Evaluative language

The model of critical discussion and strategic manoeuvring

chapter 7|8 pages

Pulling the strands together