1887
Volume 18, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

Legal argumentation is intended to resolve a difference of opinion between two or more legal parties by determining what are the facts in a case and finding an appropriate legal interpretation for these facts. Some of the discussion moves in legal argumentation take the shape of counterfactual conditionals (CTFs). CTFs are conditionals with an antecedent that is implicated to be false, not corresponding to the facts, and they occur in a number of argumentative contexts and argumentation techniques. This paper gives a structured overview of how such non-fact-based CTFs can contribute to resolving a legal and fact- centered difference of opinion. It does so by presenting a bottom-up corpus-based typology of CTFs in lawyers’ conclusions and in judgments in civil cases heard by Dutch-speaking Belgian courts of law. This typology is based on linguistic and pragmatic factors, such as the status of the facts that are referred to in the antecedent, the nature of the relation between antecedent and consequent, and the relation the CTF bears to the argumentative, situational and legal context.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18.3.06niv
2008-01-01
2019-08-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bocken, Hubert
    (1988) Enkele hoofdthema’s van de causaliteitsproblematiek. In Tijdschrift voor Belgisch burgerlijk recht3: 268-298.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bocken, Hubert , and Ingrid Boone
    (2002) Causaliteit in het Belgische recht. InTijdschrift voor privaatrecht4: 1-61.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Broda-Bahm, Kenneth T
    (2000) Arguments on what might have been: An observational analysis of counterfactual advocacy among mock jurors in deliberative and focus-group settings. Paper presented atthe Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Seattle.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2001) Your counterfactual strategy: How you can influence jurors' thoughts about 'what might have been'. Paper presented atthe Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Collins, John , Ned Hall , and Laury A. Paul
    (2004) Causation and counterfactuals. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins, John
    (2004) Preemptive prevention. In J. Collins , N. Hall , and L.A. Paul (eds.), Causation and counterfactuals. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press, pp. 107-117.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dalcq, Roger O
    (1992) Problèmes actuels au matière de causalité. InRevue générale des assurances et des responsabilités1, 12656(1)-12656(8).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Declerck, Renaat , and Susan Reed
    (2001) Conditionals. A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110851748
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110851748 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fearon, James D
    (1996) Causes and counterfactuals in social science. Exploring an analogy between cellular automata and historical processes. In A. Tetlock and Ph. Belkin (eds.), Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 39-67.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Feteris, Eveline T
    (1994) Redelijkheid in juridische argumentatie. Een overzicht van theorieën over het rechtvaardigen van juridische beslissingen. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodman, Nelson
    (1947) The Problem of counterfactual conditionals. The journal of philosophy44: 1- 13. doi: 10.2307/2019988
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2019988 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hart, H.L.A. , and Tony Honoré
    (1959) Causation in the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Haeseryn, W. , K. Romijn , G. Geerts , J. de Rooij , and M.C. van den Toorn
    (1997) Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers/Wolters Plantijn.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kahneman, Daniel , and Amos Tversky
    (1982) The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman , P. Slovic , and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201-208. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809477.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477.015 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lewis, David
    (1973) Causation. The journal of philosophy70.17: 556-567. doi: 10.2307/2025310
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2025310 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2004) Causation as Influence. In J. Collins , N. Hall , and L.A. Paul (eds.), Causation and counterfactuals. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London: The MIT Press, pp. 76-106.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Macrae, C. Neil , Alan B. Milne , and Riana J. Griffiths
    (1993) Counterfactual thinking and the perception of criminal behaviour. British journal of psychology 84: 221-226. doi: 10.1111/j.2044‑8295.1993.tb02475.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1993.tb02475.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Nivelle, Nele , and William Van Belle
    (2006 in press) The use of counterfactual conditionals expressing causation in legal discourse. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Argumentation .
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Perelman, Chaim , and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    (1969) The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Rescher, Nicholas
    (1961) Belief-contravening suppositions. The philosophical review70.2: 176-196. doi: 10.2307/2183237
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2183237 [Google Scholar]
  21. Spellman, Barbara A. , and Alexandra Kincannon
    (2001) The relationship between counterfactual ("but for") and causal reasoning: Experimental findings and implications for jurors' decisions. Law & contemporary problems 64: 241. doi: 10.2307/1192297
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1192297 [Google Scholar]
  22. Turley, Kandi Jo , Lawrence J. Sanna , and Renée L. Reiter
    (1995) Counterfactual thinking and perceptions of rape. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 17.3: 285-303. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1703_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Eemeren , Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst
    (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Van Gerven, Walter , and Sofie Covemaeker
    (2001) Verbintenissenrecht. Leuven/Leusden: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Wilson, Deirdre
    (2000) Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber (ed.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 411-448.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Wilson, Deirdre , and Dan Sperber
    (2004) Relevance theory. In L.R. Horn , and G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 607-632.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18.3.06niv
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