Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Survey of 25 Years of Research on Legal Argumentation

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay discusses the developments and trends of research in legalargumentation of the last 25 years. The essay starts with a survey of thevarious approaches which can be distinguished: the logical approach, therhetorical approach, and the dialogical approach. Then it identifies varioustopics in the research, which constitute the various components of aresearch programme of legal argumentation: the philosophical component, thetheoretical component, the reconstruction component, the empiricalcomponent, and the practical component. It concludes with a discussion ofthe main trends in the research of the last 25 years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • Aarnio, A.: 1977, On Legal Reasoning, Turun Yliopisto, Turku.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aarnio, A.: 1987, The Rational as Reasonable. A Treatise of Legal Justification, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aarnio, A., R. Alexy and A. Peczenik: 1981, ‘The Foundation of Legal Reasoning’, Rechtstheorie, Band 21(2), 133–158, (3), 257–279, (4), 423–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aarnio, A., I. Niiniluoto and J. Uusitalo: 1981, Methodologie und Erkenntnistheorie der Juristischen Argumentation, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R.: 1980, ‘Die Logische Analyse Juristischer Entscheidungen’, in Hassemer et al. (eds.), pp. 181–212.

  • Alexy, R.: 1989, A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Clarendon Press, Oxford (Translation of: Theorie der Juristischen Argumentation, Die Theorie des Rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der Juristischen Begründung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1978, Second edition 1991 with a reaction to critics).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R. and A. Peczenik: 1990, ‘The Concept of Coherence and its Significance for Discursive Rationality’, Ratio Juris 3(1), 130–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asbell Sheppard, S. and R. D. Rieke: 1983, ‘Categories of Reasoning in Legal Argument’, in Zarefsky et al. (eds.), pp. 235–250.

  • Ballweg, O.: 1982, ‘Phronetik, Semiotik und Rhetorik’, in Ballweg and Seibert (eds.), pp. 27–71.

  • Ballweg, O. and T. M. Seibert: 1982, Rhetorische Rechtstheorie. Zum 75. Geburtstag von Theodor Viehweg, K. Alber, Freiburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. L.: 1981, ‘An Empirical Investigation of Argumentative Strategies Employed in in Supreme Court Opinions’, in Ziegelmucller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 179–196.

  • Benoit, W. L.: 1989, ‘Attorney Argumentation and Supreme Court Opinions’, Argumentation and Advocacy 26(1), 22–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. L. and J. M. D'Agostine: 1994, ‘The Case of the “Midnight Judges” and Multiple Audience Discourse: Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury v. Madison’, Southern Communication Journal 50, 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. L. and J. S. France: 1980, ‘Analogical Reasoning in Legal Argumentation’, in Rhodes and Newell (eds.), pp. 48–60.

  • Benoit, W. L and J. S. France: 1983, ‘Review of Research on Opening Statements and Closing Arguments’, in R. J. Matlon and R. J. Crawford (eds.), Communication Strategies in the Practice of Lawyering, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, pp. 394–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, S. J.: 1985, An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning, Little, Brown, Boston/Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copi, I. (and C. Cohen): 1990, Introduction to Logic, Macmillan, New York (eight edition).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicks, V. I.: 1976, ‘Courtroom Controversy: A Stasis/stock Issue Analysis of the Angela Davis Trial’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 13, 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicks, V. I.: 1981, ‘Courtroom Rhetorical Strategies: Forensic and Deliberative Perspectives’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 67, 178–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, M. and R. Schwartz: 1970, ‘Argument: The Oral Argument before the Supreme Court in Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, 1952–1955’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 56, 341–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, M. and R. Schwartz: 1971, ‘Oral Argument before the Supreme Court: Marshall v. Davis in the School Segregation Cases’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 57, 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. and M. Cooper: 1981, ‘A Situational Perspective for the Study of Legal Argument. A Case Study of Brown v. Board of Education’, in Ziegelmucller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 213–241.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van: 1987, ‘Argumentation Studies' Five Estates’, in Wenzel (ed.), pp. 9–24.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, E. T. Feteris, R. Grootendorst, T. van Haaften, W. den Harder, H. Kloosterhuis, T. Kruiger and J. Plug: 1991, Argumenteren voor Juristen. Het Analyseren en Schrijven van Juridische Betogen en Beleidsteksten (Argumentation for Lawyers) (secion edition, first edition 1987), Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard: 1987, Argumentation: Analysis and Practices. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986, Foris, Dordrecht.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard: 1991, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, Sicsat, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard: 1995, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation, Sicsat, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, J.: 1979, Juristisches Argumentieren im Wandel des Rechtsfindungskonzepts unseres Jahrhunderts, Winter, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T.: 1987, ‘The Dialectical Role of the Judge in a Dutch Legal Process’, in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices, Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale (VA), pp. 335–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T.: 1990, ‘Conditions and Rules for Rational Discussion in a Legal Process: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective’, Argumentation and Advocacy. Journal of the American Forensic Association 26(3), 108–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T.: 1991, ‘Normative Reconstruction of Legal Discussions’. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, June 19–22 1990, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 768–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T.: 1993a, ‘The Judge as a Critical Antagonist in a Legal Process: A Pragmadialectical Perspective’, in R. E. McKerrow (ed.), Argument and the Postmodern Challenge. Proceedings of the eighth SCA/AFA Conference on argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, pp. 476–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T.: 1993b, ‘Rationality in Legal Discussions: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective’, Informal Logic XV(3), 179–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T.: 1995, ‘The Analysis and Evaluation of Legal Argumentation from a Pragmadialectical Perspective’, in E. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. IV, pp. 42–51.

  • Feteris, E. T. and J. Schuetz: 1996, Faces of North American and European Legal Argument. Argumentation.

  • Golden, J. L. and J. M. Makau: 1982, ‘Perspectives on Judicial Reasoning’, in R. E. McKErrow (ed.), (ed.), Explorations in Rhetoric, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, pp. 157–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, J. L. and J. J. Pilotta: 1986, Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs. Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, M. P.: 1984, Legal Reasoning, Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, G.: 1968, The Logic of Choice. An Investigation of the Concepts of Rule and Rationality, George Allen and Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronbeck, B. E.: 1989, Spheres of Argument. Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale VA.

  • Günther, K.: 1989, ‘Ein normativer Begriff der Kohärenz. Für eine Theorie der Juristischen Argumentation’, Rechtstheorie, Band 20, 163–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haarscher, G.: Chaïm Perelman et la pensée contemporatine, Bruylant, Bruxelles.

  • Habermas, J.: 1971, ‘Theorie der Gesellschaft onder Sozialtechnologie? Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Niklas Luhmann’, in J. Habermas and N. Luhmann (eds.), Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie?. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., pp. 101–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1981, Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1988, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 8, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1991, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. (Translation of Moralbesusstsein und Kommunikatives Handeln, 1983), The MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1992, Faktizizät und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des Demokratischen Rechtsstaats, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, M. R.: 1976, ‘Roe v. Wade: the Rhetoric of Fetal Life’, Central States Speech Journal 27(3), 192–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haft, F.: 1981, Juristische Rhetorik, Alber, Freiburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C., R. Leenes and A. R. Lodder: 1994, ‘Hard Cases: a Procedural Approach’, Artificial intelligence and law 2, 113–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C., G. P. J. Span and A. R. Lodder: 1992, ‘A Dialogical Model of Legal Reasoning’, in C. A. F. M. Grütters et al. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Information Technology and Law. JURIX '92, Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassemer, W., A. Kaufmann and U. Neumann: 1980, Argumentation und Recht. Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, Beiheft neue Folge Nr. 14, F. Steiner, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henket, M.: 1987, ‘Ne Bis in Idem and Related Principles’, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 123–130.

  • Henket, M.: 1991, ‘Analogy and Rules in Practical Reasoning’, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 790–800.

  • Henket, M.: 1992, ‘On the Logical Analysis of Judicial Decisions’, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law V(14), 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henket, M. M. and P. J. van den Hoven: 1990, Juridische Vaardigheden in Argumentatief Verband. (Legal Skills in an Argumentative Context), Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbeck, D. A.: 1995a, ‘Crucial Legal Studies and Argumentation Theory’, Argumentation 9(5), 719–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbeck, D. A.: 1995b, ‘The Problems of Jurisprudence and Argumentation Theory’, in Van Emeren et al., IV, 3–123.

  • Hohmann, H.: 1991, ‘Fallacies and Legal Argumentation’, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 776–781.

  • Hohmann, H.: 1995, ‘Logic and Rhetoric in Legal Argumentation: Some Medieval Perspectives’, in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 14–30.

  • Hollihan, T. A., P. Riley and K. Freadhoff: 1986, ‘Arguing for Justice: An Analysis of Arguing in Small Claims Court’, Journal of the America Forensic Association 22(4), 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, N.: 1967, ‘Zur Bedeutung der Topiklehre Theodor Viehwegs für eine Einheitliche Theorie des Juristischen Denkens’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, pp. 601–608.

  • Horovitz, J.: 1972, Law and Logic, A Critical Account of Legal Argument, Springer, Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoven, P. J. van den: 1988, ‘Rechtszekerheid, Rechtvaardigheid, Verstaanbaarheid’, Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing 10(3), 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunsaker, D. M.: 1978, ‘The Rhetoric of Brown v. Board of Education: Paradigm for Contemporary Social Protest’, Southern Speech Communication Journal 43, 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hie, C.: 1995, ‘The Validity of Rhetorical Questions as Arguments in the Courtroom’, in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 73–88.

  • Janas, M.: 1995, ‘Structure, Aesthetics, Rhetoric and Posner's Theory of Justice’, in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 97–110.

  • Jensen, J. C.: 1957, The Nature of Legal Argument, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Die Juristische Argumentation: 1972, F. Steiner, Wiesbaden.

  • Kalinowski, G.: 1972, La Logique des Normes, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, H.: 1994, ‘E contrario Arguments in Law: From Interpretation to Implicit Premisses’, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law VI(18), 315–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, H.: 1995, ‘The Redundancy of Precedent and Analogy’, in F. H. van Eemeren et al., IV, 122–137.

  • Klinger, G.: 1989, ‘Rhetoric's Wide-angle Lense: How Legal Vision can be Enhanced with Rhetorical Glasses’, in Grondbeck (ed.), pp. 359–363.

  • Kloosterhuis, H.: 1994, ‘Analysing Analogy Argumentation in Judicial Decisions’, in F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-dialectics, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 238–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterhuis, H.: 1995, ‘The Study of Analogy Argumentation in Law: Four Pragma-dialectical Starting Points’, in F. H. van Eemeren et al., IV, 138–145.

  • Klug, U.: 1951, Juristische Logik. (fourth revised edition 1982), Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, H. J.: 1980, ‘Das Frankfurter Projekt zur Juristischen Argumentation: Zur Rehabilitation des Deduktiven Begründens Juristischer Entscheidungen’, in Hassemer, Kaufmann, Neumann (eds.), pp. 59–86.

  • Kominar, R. A.: 1995, ‘Beyond the Final Court of Appeal: Getting Legal Reasoning Right in the Common Law’, in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 146–151.

  • Krawietz, W. and R. Alexy: 1983, Metatheorie Juristischer Argumentation, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krawietz, W., K. Opalek, A. Reczenik and A. Schramm: 1979, Argumentation und Hermeneutik in der Jurispruden, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempereur, A. 1991, Legal Argument. Argumentation 5(3), pp. 000–000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, E. H.: 1949, An introduction to Legal Reasoning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luebke, S. W.: 1995, ‘Informal Logic Issues in Practical Testing Context’, in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 31–41.

  • MacCormick, N.: 1978, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N.: 1984, ‘Coherence in Legal Justification’, in Peczenik et al. (eds.), pp. 235–252.

  • MacCormick, N.: 1992, ‘Legal Deduction, Legal Predicates and Expert Systems’, International Journal for the Semiotics of law V(14), 181–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, D. N. and R. S. Summers: 1991, Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study. Dartmouth, Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy, S. T.: 1991, ‘Issues in Common Law Pleading and Ancient Rhetoric’, Argumentation 5(3), 245–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy, S. T.: 1995, ‘The Construction of Issues: Pleading Theory and Practice, Relevance in Pragmatics, and the Confrontation Stage in the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation’, in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 52–60.

  • Makau, J. M.: 1984, ‘The Supreme Court and Reasonableness’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 379–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maneli, M.: 1993, Perelman's New Rhetoric as Philosophy and Methodology for the Next Century, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matlon, R. J.: 1994, Legal Communication. Argumentation and Advocacy 30(4).

  • Neumann, U.: 1986, Juristische Argumentationstheorie, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, U., J. Rahlf and E. von Savigny: 1976, Juristische Dogmatik un Wissenschaftstheorie, Beck, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S. E. and R. D. Rieke: 1986, ‘A Practical Reasoning Approach to Legal Doctrine’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 22(4), 212–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panetta, E. and M. Hasian Jr.: 1995, ‘Sex, Reason and Economics: The Judicial Discourse of Richard A. Posner’, in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 111–121.

  • Pavcnik, M.: 1991, ‘Interpretation as (Re)productive Act: Interpretation of General legal Acts in the Process of their Normative Concretization’, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 765–767.

  • Peczenik, A.: 1983, The Basis of Legal Justification. Lund.

  • Peczenik, A.: 1989, On Law and Reason. Reidel, Dordrecht (translation of ‘Rätten och Förnuftet’, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1963, The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument, Routledge and Keagan Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1967, Justice, Random House, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1976, Logique Juridique. Nouvelle Rhétorique, Dalloz, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1980, Justice, Law and Argument. Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning, Reidel, Dordrecht etc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1958, La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Traité de l'Argumentation, l'Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (English translation of La nouvelle rhétorique, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  • Plug, J.: 1994, ‘Reconstructing Complex Argumentation in Judicial Decisions’, in F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-dialectics, SicSat, Amsterdam, pp. 246–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plug, J.: 1995, ‘The Rational Reconstruction of Additional Considerations in Judicial Decisions’., in F. H. van Eemeren et al., pp. 61–72.

  • Plumer, G.: 1995, ‘Testing for Assumption Recognition’, in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 152–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A.: 1988, Law and Literature: A Misunderstood Relation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A.: 1990, The Problems of Jurisprudence, Chicago Illinois, University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H.: 1993, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Dissertation Amsterdam. Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prott, L. V.: 1991, ‘Argumentation in International Law’, Argumentation 5(3), 299–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieke, R. D.: 1981, ‘Investigating Legal Argument as a Field’, in Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 152–159.

  • Rieke, R. D.: 1991, ‘The Judicial Dialogue’, in Argumentation 5(1), 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieke, R. D.: 1982, ‘Argumentation in the Legal Process’, in J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 363–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieke, R. D.: 1986, ‘The Evolution of Judicial Justification: Perelman's Concept of the Rational and the Reasonable’, in J. Golden and J. J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, pp. 227–244.

  • Rieke, R. D.: 1991, ‘The Judicial Dialogue’, Argumentation 5(1), 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieke, R. D. and R. K. Stutman: 1990, Communication in Legal Advocacy, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia A. S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, P., T. A. Hollihan and K. D. Freadhoff: 1987, ‘Argument in the Law: The Special Case of the Small Claims Court’, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 142–151.

  • Rödig, J.: 1971, ‘Kritik des Normlogischen Schliessens’, Theory and Decision 2, 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russow, L. M. and M. Curd: 1988, Principles of Reasoning, St. Martin's Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scallen, E. A.: 1995, ‘American Legal Argumentation: The Law and Literature Movement’, Argumentation 9(5), 705–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreckenberger, W.: 1978, Rhetorische Semiotik. Analyse von Texten des Grundgesetzes und von Rhetorischen Grundstrukturen der Argumentation des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes, K. Alber, Freiburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz, J.: 1981, ‘The Genesis of Argumentative Forms and Fields’, in Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 279–295.

  • Schuetz, J.: 1986, ‘Overlays of Argument in Legislative Process’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 22(4), 223–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz, J.: 1991, ‘Perelman's Rule of Justice in Mexican Appellate Courts’, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 804–812.

  • Schuetz, J. and K. Snedaker: 1988, Communications Strategies and the Litigation Process, Southern Illinois University Press, Corbondale IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, T. M.: 1980, ‘Juristische Topik: Ein Beispiel für die Argumentative Wechselbeziehung zwischen Situation und Fall, Regel und Ausnahme’, Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 10. W. Klein (eds.), Göttingen, pp. 169–177.

  • Snedaker, K.: 1987, ‘The Content and Structure of Appellate Argument: Rhetorical Analysis of Brief Writing Strategies in the Sam Sheppard Appeal’, in Wenzel (ed.), pp. 315–324.

  • Soeteman, A.: 1989, Logic in Law. Remarks on Logic and Rationality in Normative Reasoning, Especially in Law, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soeteman, A., E. A. Huppes-Cluysenaer and L. K. van Zaltbommel: 1990, Taalbeheersing voor Juristen. (Speech communication for lawyers), Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J.: 1964, Legal System and Lawyers' Reasonings, Stevens, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struck, G.: 1977, Zur Theorie Juristischer Argumentation, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tammelo, I.: 1969, Outlines of Modern Legal Logic, Steiner, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tammelo, I., G. Moens and P. Brouwer: 1981, ‘De Tegenformulemethode en haar Rechtslogische Toepassingen’, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Rechtsfilosofie en Rechtstheorie 10, 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolumin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S., R. Rieke and A. Janik: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning (second edition, first edition 1978), Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg, R.: 1989, ‘Narrative Justice. An Analysis of Selected Supreme Court Decisions’, in Gronbeck (ed.), pp. 86–93.

  • Twining, W. and D. Miers: 1994, How to Do Things with Rules, Butterworths, London (Third edition, first edition 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Viehweg, Th.: 1954, Topik und Jurisprudenz. (fifth revised edition 1974), Beck, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G. B. and S. E. Daniels: 1995, ‘Argument and Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems’, Argumentation 9(5), 689–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, O.: 1970, Rechtslogik. Versuch einer Anwendung Moderner Logik auf das Juristiche Denken, Springer, Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasby, S. L., A. D'Amato and R. Metrailer: 1976, ‘The Functions of Oral Argument in the U.S. Supreme Court’, The Quarterly Journal of Speech 62, 410–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, J.: 1987, Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the fifth summer conference on argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale VA.

  • White, J. B.: 1984, When Words Lose their Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J. B.: 1989, ‘What can a Lawyer Learn from Literature?’, Harvard Law Review 102(8), 204–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J. B.: 1990, Justice as Translocation. An Essay in Cultural and Legal Criticism, Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiethoff, W. E.: 1985, ‘Critical Perspectives on Perelman's Philosophy of Legal Argument’, Journal of the american Forensic Association 22, 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wróblewski, J.: 1974, ‘Legal Syllogism and Rationality of Judicial Decision’, Rechtstheorie Band 14(5), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D., M. O. Sillars and J. Rhodes: 1983, Argument in Transition. Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annadale VA.

  • Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes: 1981, Dimensions of Argument. Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale VA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    E. T. Feteris

Authors
  1. E. T. Feteris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feteris, E.T. A Survey of 25 Years of Research on Legal Argumentation. Argumentation 11, 355–376 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007794830151

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007794830151

Search

Navigation