A repugnant possibility

References

1. Aarnio, A.
   (1987) The rational as reasonable. A treatise of legal justification. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Ackermann v. Levine, 610 F. Supp. 633
   Ackermann v. Levine, 610 F. Supp. 633 (SDNY 1985)
3. Alexy, R.
   (1989) A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. AristotleJ. H. Freese
   Aristotle 1926 Rhetoric (1926) trans. byJ. H. Freese. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bakhtin, M. M.
   (1981) (Trans., C. Emerson, Trans.). InM. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bakhtin, M. M.
   (1986) (V. W. McGee, Trans.). InC. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
   (1988) “Adverbial Stance Types in English”. Discourse Processes, 111, 1–34. 10.1080/01638538809544689
   https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689 [Google Scholar]
8. Black, M.
   (1962) Models and Metaphors Studies in Language and Philosophy. Madrid Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501741326
   https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501741326 [Google Scholar]
9. Cicero, M. T.
   n.d.De Inventione Studi di filologia e letteratura 1998 Galatina: M. Congedo.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Cicero, M. T.
    -55. De Oratore 1948 trans. byE. W. Sutton: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Constable, M.
    (2014) Law as language. Critical Analysis of Law, 1(1), 63–74.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración y Producción, 9621F. Supp. 2d 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
    [Google Scholar]
13. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10June 1958, United Nations Treaty Series, vol.330, No.4739, p.3
    [Google Scholar]
14. Crismore, A., R. Markkanen, & M. S. Steffensen
    (1993) “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students”. Written Communication, 10(1): 39–71. 10.1177/0741088393010001002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002 [Google Scholar]
15. Dafouz, E.
    (2003) “Metadiscourse Revisited: A Contrastive Study of Persuasive Writing in Professional Discourse.” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense111, 29–52.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ebbesson, J.
    (2008) Law, Power and Language: Beware of Metaphors. Scandinavian Studies in Law531:259–269.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Endicott, T. A. O.
    (2000) Vagueness in Law. Oxford: OUP Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268406.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268406.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
18. Feteris, E. T.
    (2005) “The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: a pragmadialectical perspective”, Argumentation19 (4), 459–470. 10.1007/s10503‑005‑0512‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-0512-0 [Google Scholar]
19. Feteris, E., & H. Kloosterhuis
    (2009) “The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation: approaches from legal theory and argumentation theory.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16(29), 307–331.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Giner, D.
    (2017) “Rhetorical strategies of persuasion in the reasoning of international investment arbitral awards” inPower, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities. Linguistic Insights, ed. byMaría Ángeles Orts, Ruth Breeze, and Maurizio Gotti, 243–265. Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, Wien (et al.): Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Goodrich, H. F.
    (1924) Tort Obligations and the Conflict of Laws. InThe Conflict of Laws. 73 U. of Pa. L. Rev., 19–42. 10.2307/3314363
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3314363 [Google Scholar]
22. Halliday, M. A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Hinkle, R K., A. D. Martin, J. D. Shaub & E. Tiller
    (2012) “A positive theory and empirical analysis of strategic word choice in district court opinions. Journal of Legal Analysis, 41(), 407–444. 10.1093/jla/las014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/las014 [Google Scholar]
24. Hunston, S., & G. Thompson
    (eds.) (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hyland, K.
    2005 Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Inter-American Convention on international commercial arbitration
    Inter-American Convention on international commercial arbitration, 30January 1975, 1438 U.N.T.S. 245, O.A.S.T.S. No. 42.
27. Kloosterhuis, H.
    (2008) The Strategic Use of Formal Argumentation in Legal Decisions. Ratio Juris, 211: 496–506.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson
    (1980) Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
29. Lakoff, G., & M. Turner
    (1989) More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
30. McCormac, E. R.
    (1985) A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
31. Maniruzzaman, A. F. M.
    (2012) The Concept of Good Faith in International Investment Disputes – The Arbitrator’s Dilemma. Amicus Curiae: Journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies891. 10.14296/ac.v2012i89.1675
    https://doi.org/10.14296/ac.v2012i89.1675 [Google Scholar]
32. Manzin, M.
    (2012) A rhetorical Approach to Legal Reasoning. InExploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.4.08man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.4.08man [Google Scholar]
33. Martin, J. R.
    (2000) Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. bySusan Hunston, and Geoffrey Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–177.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Musolff, A.
    (2017) Metaphor and Cultural Cognition. InSharifian, F. (ed.) Advances in Cultural Linguistics, Springer Singapore, pp.325–344. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4056‑6_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_15 [Google Scholar]
35. Newman, S. A.
    (1999) Uses of Metaphor in Legal Argument. New York Law Journal, November. 4371.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Osborn, M. & D. Ehninger
    (1962) The Metaphor in Public Address. Speech Monograph, 291, pp.223–234. 10.1080/03637756209375346
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637756209375346 [Google Scholar]
37. Perelman, C.
    (1979) Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Dalloz.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Quintilian, M. F.
    92–94. Institutio Oratoria 1980 trans. byH. E. Butler. 41vols. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Sapir, D. & C. Crocker
    (eds.) (1977) The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 10.9783/9781512806632
    https://doi.org/10.9783/9781512806632 [Google Scholar]
40. Smith, M. R.
    (2007) Levels of Metaphor in Persuasive Legal Writing. Mercer Law Review, Vol.58, No.3.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Sopory, P., & J. P. Dillard
    (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382–419
    [Google Scholar]
42. Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862
    Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir 1981)
43. Termorio S.A.E.S.P. & Leaseco Group, L.L.C. v. Electranta S.P. et al.
    Termorio S.A.E.S.P. & Leaseco Group, L.L.C. v. Electranta S.P. et al., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir 2007)
44. van Eemeren, F. H., & R. Grootendorst
    (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
45. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst
    (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2007) Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
47. Vande Kopple, W. J.
    (1985) “Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication36/11, 82–93. 10.2307/357609
    https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 [Google Scholar]
48. Vass, H.
    (2004) “Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres”. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 71, 125–141.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Vázquez, I., and D. Giner
    (2012) “Contrastive Study of International Commercial Arbitration and Court Judgments: Intertextuality through Metadiscourse in Action” inArbitration awards: Generic features and textual realizations, ed. byV. Bhatia, G. Garzone, and C. Degano, 171–191. Cambridge: Cambridge Publishing Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]