ABSTRACT
This chapter compares the ways in which the concept of evaluation is used in linguistics and argumentation studies, focusing on how reconstructing real-world argumentation in actual legal decisions is a goal shared by both disciplines. The chapter explains how, apart from pragma-dialectics, the present study of evaluative language in argumentation is informed by the rhetorical (or topical) approach espoused mainly in Perelman's ‘new rhetoric’ (1969) and, to a lesser extent, by Viehweg (1993). After outlining the processes of constitutional review in the United States and Poland, the chapter defines justification of judicial decision by describing its functions and audiences. In addition, it discusses justification as a text genre manifesting the major organizational format of a judgment (Constitutional Tribunal) and judicial opinion (US Supreme Court) from each court to show how justifications fit in within their overall structure. Finally, the chapter compares the internal organization of justifications crafted in the two judicial contexts.
