1887
Volume 12 Number 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Holy Scriptures can be considered a specific kind of normative texts, whose use to assess practical moral cases requires interpretation. In the field of ethics, this interpretative problem results in the necessity of bridging the gap between the normative source – moral precepts – and the specific cases. In the history of the Church, this problem was the core of the so-called casuistry, namely the decision-making practice consisting in applying the Commandments and other principles of the Holy Scriptures to specific cases or moral problems. By taking into account the sin of lying, this paper argues that casuistic texts reveal an extremely sophisticated interpretative method, grounded on “pragmatic” contextual and communicative considerations and argumentative structures that resemble the ones used in legal interpretation. These works show how the underspecified biblical text expressing an abstract norm was enriched pragmatically by completing it and modulating its meaning so that it could be used to draw a conclusion in a specific context on a specific case. The mutual interdependence between biblical interpretation, pragmatics, and argumentation sheds light on a much broader phenomenon, namely the pragmatic nature of argumentation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22009.mac
2023-05-09
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, Bruce
    2013 “Weighing and Balancing in the Light of Deliberation and Expression.” InLegal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. byChristian Dahlman and Eveline Feteris, 113–23. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4670‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4670-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aquinas, St. Thomas
    1961Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle. Edited byJohn Rowan. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1987Summa Theologica. Edited byFathers of the English Dominican Province. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica/ University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2006Summa Theologiae: Volume 32, Consequences of Faith: 2a2ae. 8’16. Edited byThomas Gilby. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aristotle
    Aristotle 1955 “On Sophistical Refutations.” InOn Sophistical Refutations. On Coming-to-Be and Passing Away. On the Cosmos, ed. byE. Forster. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aristotle
    Aristotle 1991a “Rhetoric.” InThe Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. II, ed. byJonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Aristotle
    Aristotle 1991b “Sophistical Refutations.” InThe Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. I, ed. byJonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arras, John
    1991 “Getting down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy16 (1): 29–51. 10.1093/jmp/16.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/16.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  9. Atlas, Jay David
    2005Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Atlas, Jay David, and Stephen Levinson
    1981 “It-Clefts, Informativeness and Logical Form: Radical Pragmatics (Revised Standard Version).” InRadical Pragmatics, ed. byPeter Cole, 1–62. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Augustine of Hippo
    Augustine of Hippo 1999The Retractations. Edited byMary Inez Bogan. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Augustine of Hippo
    Augustine of Hippo 1952a “Lying.” InTreatises on Various Subjects (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 16), ed. byRoy DeFerrari and Mary Sarah Muldowney, 45–110. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. 10.2307/j.ctt32b2mf
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32b2mf [Google Scholar]
  13. Augustine of Hippo
    Augustine of Hippo 1952b “Against Lying.” InTreatises on Various Subjects (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 16), ed. byRoy DeFerrari and Harold Jaffee, 111–80. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. 10.2307/j.ctt32b2mf.6
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32b2mf.6 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bach, Kent
    2000 “Quantification, Qualification and Context a Reply to Stanley and Szabó.” Mind and Language15 (2 & 3): 262–83. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00131
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00131 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish
    1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bacon, Roger
    1940Summa Grammatica. Edited byRobert Steele. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Barr, James
    2013Bible and Interpretation: The Collected Essays of James Barr: Volume I: Interpretation and Theology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Blakemore, Diane
    1992Understanding Utterances. Oxford, UK: Blackwell-Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1996 “Are Apposition Markers Discourse Markers?” Journal of Linguistics32 (2): 325–47. 10.1017/S0022226700015917
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015917 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1998 “On the Context for So-Called Discourse Markers.” InContext in Language Understanding and Language Learning, ed. byKirsten Malmkjaer and John Williams, 44–60. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Blutner, Reinhard
    2007 “Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/Implicature Distinction.” InPragmatics, ed. byNoel Burton-Roberts, 67–89. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_5 [Google Scholar]
  22. Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus
    1880Commentarii in Librum Aristotelis Peri Hermeneias. Edited byKarl Meiser. Lipsia, Germany: Teubneri.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Borg, Emma
    2016 “Exploding Explicatures.” Mind & Language31 (3): 335–55. 10.1111/mila.12109
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12109 [Google Scholar]
  24. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  25. Burke, Edmund
    1887 “An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs.” InThe Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. IV. London, UK: John C. Nimmo.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Carston, Robyn
    1988 “Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics.” InMental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, ed. byRuth Kempson, 155–181. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2002aThoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2002b “Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics.” Mind and Language17 (1&2): 127–48. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00192
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00192 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2010 “Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society110 (3pt3): 295–321. 10.1111/j.1467‑9264.2010.00288.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013 “Legal Texts and Canons of Construction: A View from Current Pragmatic Theory.” InLaw and Language: Current Legal Issues, ed. byMichael Freeman and Fiona Smith, 151:8–33. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Chiassoni, Pierluigi
    2016 “Legal Interpretation without Truth.” Revus: Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law291: 93–118. 10.4000/revus.3615
    https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.3615 [Google Scholar]
  32. Dascal, Marcelo, and Jerzy Wróblewski
    1988 “Transparency and Doubt: Understanding and Interpretation in Pragmatics and in Law.” Law and Philosophy7 (2): 203–24. 10.1007/BF00144156
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144156 [Google Scholar]
  33. Dworkin, Ronald
    1986Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gábriš, Tomáš
    2019 “Systematic versus Casuistic Approach to Law: On the Benefits of Legal Casuistry.” Journal of Ethics and Legal Technologies1 (1): 57–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Garcia, Alberto, and Dominique Monlezun
    2016 “Casuistry.” InEncyclopedia of Global Bioethics, ed. byHenk ten Have, 440–51. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑09483‑0_72
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_72 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gauker, Christopher
    1986 “The Principle of Charity.” Synthese. JSTOR, 1–25. 10.1007/BF01988284
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01988284 [Google Scholar]
  37. Greenawalt, Kent
    2015Interpreting the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756155.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756155.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Grice, Paul
    1968 “Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence Meaning and Word-Meaning.” Foundations of Language41: 225–242. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2727‑8_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2727-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Groppi, Tania, and Irene Spigno
    2017 “The Constitutional Court of Italy.” InComparative Constitutional Reasoning, ed. byAndrás Jakab, Arthur Dyevre, and Giulio Itzcovich, 516–59. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316084281.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084281.016 [Google Scholar]
  41. Guastini, Riccardo
    2011Interpretare e Argomentare. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè. 10.2307/2218258
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2218258 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hamblin, Charles Leonard
    1970Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hepner, Gershon
    2003 “Abraham’s Incestuous Marriage with Sarah a Violation of the Holiness Code.” Vetus Testamentum53 (2): 143–55. 10.1163/156853303764664580
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853303764664580 [Google Scholar]
  44. Horn, Laurence
    1984 “Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-Based and R-Based Implicature.” InMeaning, Form, and Use in Context, ed. byDeborah Schiffring, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 1995 “Vehicles of Meaning: Unconventional Semantics and Unbearable Interpretation.” Washington University Law Quarterly731: 1145–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Jaszczolt, Kasia
    2017 “Slippery Meaning and Accountability.” InPragmatics and Law, ed. byFrancesca Poggi and Alessandro Capone, 3–22. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑44601‑1_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44601-1_1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jonsen, Albert
    1995 “Casuistry: An Alternative or Complement to Principles?” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal5 (3): 237–51. 10.1353/ken.0.0016
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0016 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jonsen, Albert, and Stephen Toulmin
    1988The Abuse of Casuistry. A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Journals.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Jori, Mario
    2016 “Legal Pragmatics.” InPragmatics and Law, ed. byAlessandro Capone and Francesca Poggi, 33–60. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑30385‑7_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_3 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kecskes, Istvan
    2008 “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (3): 385–406. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2013Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang
    2009 “Activating, Seeking, and Creating Common Ground: A Socio-Cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition17 (2): 331–55. 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec [Google Scholar]
  53. Kirk, Kenneth
    1927Conscience and Its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry. London, UK: Longmans, Green, and Co. LTD.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kirwan, Christopher
    1979 “Aristotle and the So-Called Fallacy of Equivocation.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950–)29 (114): 35–46. 10.2307/2219181
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2219181 [Google Scholar]
  55. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Levinson, Stephen
    1998 “Minimization and Conversational Inference.” InPragmatics. Critical Concepts, ed. byAsa Kasher, 545–612. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lewis, Frank
    1991Substance and Predication in Aristotle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2022a “Secundum Quid and the Pragmatics of Arguments. The Challenges of the Dialectical Tradition.” Argumentation. 36 (3): 317–43. 10.1007/s10503‑022‑09568‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09568-4 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2022b “Ignoring Qualifications as a Pragmatic Fallacy: Enrichments and Their Use for Manipulating Commitments.” Languages7 (1): 13. 10.3390/languages7010013
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7010013 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2017 “The Logical and Pragmatic Structure of Arguments from Analogy.” Logique et Analyse60 (240): 465–90. 10.2143/LEA.240.0.3254093
    https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.240.0.3254093 [Google Scholar]
  63. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton
    2017Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑62545‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4 [Google Scholar]
  64. Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton, and Giovanni Sartor
    2014 “Argumentation Schemes for Statutory Interpretation.” InProceedings of JURIX 2014: The Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, ed. byRinke Hoekstra, 11–20. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2018 “Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation.” Law and Philosophy37 (1): 69–115. 10.1007/s10982‑017‑9306‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9306-4 [Google Scholar]
  66. MacCormick, Neil, and Robert Summers
    eds. 1991Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Marmor, Andrei
    2016 “Defeasibility and Pragmatic Indeterminacy in Law.” InPragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives, ed. byAlessandro Capone and Francesca Poggi, 15–32. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑30385‑7_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_2 [Google Scholar]
  68. Martí, Genoveva, and Lorena Ramírez-Ludeña
    2016 “Legal Disagreements and Theories of Reference.” InPragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives, ed. byAlessandro Capone and Francesca Poggi, 121–39. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑30385‑7_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30385-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  69. Mazzolini, Sylvester
    1594Summa Sylvestrina, Quae Summa Summarum Merito Nuncupatur, Volume 2. Edited byPetrus Landru. Lugdunum, France: Zopino.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. McCabe, Herbert
    1969 “Categories.” InAquinas. A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. byAnthony Kenny, 54–92. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑15356‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15356-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  71. Morra, Lucia
    2016 “Conversational Implicatures in Normative Texts.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone and Jacob Mey, 537–62. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_21
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_21 [Google Scholar]
  72. Mosse, George L.
    1956 “The Importance of Jacques Saurin in the History of Casuistry and the Enlightenment.” Church History25 (3): 195–209. 10.2307/3161242
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3161242 [Google Scholar]
  73. Nunberg, Geoffrey
    1995 “Transfers of Meaning.” Journal of Semantics12 (2): 109–32. 10.1093/jos/12.2.109
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  74. Ophuijsen, Johannes Van
    2014Alexander of Aphrodisias: On Aristotle Topics 1. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Patterson, Dennis
    2005 “Interpretation in Law.” San Diego Law Review421: 685–710.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Pontifical Biblical Commission
    Pontifical Biblical Commission 1996The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Sydney, Australia: Pauline Books & Media.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Pouscoulous, Nausicaa, and Frédéric Goubier
    2011 “Virtus Sermonis and the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction.” Vivarium49 (1–3). Brill: 214–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Raitio, Juha
    2003The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑0353‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0353-6 [Google Scholar]
  79. Recanati, François
    2004Literal Meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615382
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615382 [Google Scholar]
  80. 2012 “Pragmatic Enrichment.” InRoutledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, ed. byGillian Russell and Delia Graff Fara, 67–78. New York, NY, and London, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Ricoeur, Paul
    1976Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Rogers, Jack, and Donald McKim
    1999The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rosier, Irène
    1993 “La Distinction Entre Actus Exercitus et Actus Significatus Dans Les Sophismes Grammaticaux Du MS BN Lat. 16618. et Autres Textes Apparentes.” InSophisms in Medieval Logic and Grammar, ed. byStephen Read, 231–61. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1767‑8_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1767-8_13 [Google Scholar]
  84. 1994La Parole Comme Acte Sur La Grammaire et La Sémantique Au XIIIe Siècle. Paris, France: Vrin.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Sbisà, Marina
    2017 “Implicitness in Normative Texts.” InPragmatics and Law: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. byFrancesca Poggi and Alessandro Capone, 23–42. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑44601‑1_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44601-1_2 [Google Scholar]
  86. Scalia, Antonin, and Bryan Garner
    2012Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Schreiber, Scott
    2003Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Sidgwick, Henry
    1962The Methods of Ethics. London, UK: Macmillan Publishing Company. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑81786‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-81786-3 [Google Scholar]
  89. Simons, Mandy
    2003 “Presupposition and Accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian Picture.” Philosophical Studies112 (3): 251–78. 10.1023/A:1023004203043
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023004203043 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sloovere, Frederick De
    1936 “Contextual Interpretation of Statutes.” Fordham Law Review5 (2): 219–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Soames, Scott
    2011 “Toward a Theory of Legal Interpretation.” NYU Law School Journal of Law and Liberty61. HeinOnline: 231–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Stalnaker, Robert
    1974 “Pragmatic Presuppositions.” InSemantics and Philosophy, ed. byMilton Munitz and Peter Unger, 197–214. New York, NY: New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Stone, Martin William Francis
    2000 “The Adoption and Rejection of Aristotelian Moral Philosophy in Reformed ‘Casuistry.’” InHumanism and Early Modern Philosophy, ed. byJill Kraye and Martin William Francis Stone, 59–90. London, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Stubbs, Michael
    2001Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Tarello, Giovanni
    1980L’interpretazione Della Legge. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Viehweg, Theodor
    1953Topik Und Jurisprudenz: Ein Beitrag Zur Rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung. München, Germany: C. H. Beck.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 1993Topics and Law. Edited byCole Durham. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Wade, Elizabeth, and Herbert Clark
    1993 “Reproduction and Demonstration in Quotations.” Journal of Memory and Language32 (6): 805–19. 10.1006/jmla.1993.1040
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1040 [Google Scholar]
  100. Walton, Douglas
    1990a “Ignoring Qualifications (Secundum Quid) as a Subfallacy of Hasty Generalization.” Logique et Analyse1301: 113–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 1990bPractical Reasoning. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 1996Arguments from Ignorance. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 1997Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 2004Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2010 “Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions.” Informal Logic30 (1): 34–61. 10.22329/il.v30i1.692
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v30i1.692 [Google Scholar]
  106. Walton, Douglas, Fabrizio Macagno, and Giovanni Sartor
    2021Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and Argumentation. New York, NY, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108554572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108554572 [Google Scholar]
  107. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  108. Westberg, Daniel
    2002Right Practical Reason: Aristotle, Action, and Prudence in Aquinas. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Williamson, Peter
    2001Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Rome, Italy: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Wilson, Neil L.
    1959 “Substances without Substrata.” The Review of Metaphysics12 (4): 521–39.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22009.mac
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22009.mac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error