Mimetics in judicial argumentation: A theoretical exploration

Abstract

To resolve a conflict of opinion regarding the past it is inevitable to present a reconstruction of that past, explicitly or implicitly. This we call the mimetic element. On an abstract level, a complete argumentation in the genus iudiciale requires a start that is mimetic and a follow-up that is diegetic. The question to be discussed is whether mimetic elements need to be formatted as sets of propositions and if so by whom.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,813

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

My notes

Similar books and articles

Cognitive Semiotics in Argumentation: A Theoretical Exploration.Paul Van den Hoven - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (2):157-176.
Commentary on: Paul van den Hoven's "Mimetics in judicial argumentation: A theoretical exploration".Michael J. Hoppmann - unknown
The Unchangeable Judicial Formats.Paul Hoven - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):499-511.
The Unchangeable Judicial Formats.Paul van den Hoven - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):499-511.
“This Argument Fails for Two Reasons…”: A Linguistic Analysis of Judicial Evaluation Strategies in US Supreme Court Judgments. [REVIEW]Davide Mazzi - 2010 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 23 (4):373-385.
Reconstructing Complex Analogy Argumentation in Judicial Decisions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Harm Kloosterhuis - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):471-483.
The judicial dialogue.Richard D. Rieke - 1991 - Argumentation 5 (1):39-55.
Formal aspects of Legal reasoning.A. Soeteman - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):731-746.
Weighing and Balancing in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline Feteris - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (1):20-30.
The Pragma-Dialectical Reconstruction of Teleological-Evaluative Argumentation in Complex Structures of Legal Justification.Eveline Feteris - unknown
Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation.David M. Godden - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (2):219-243.
Argumentation from Reasonableness in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline Feteris - unknown - In Christian Dahlman & Thomas Bustamante (eds.), Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation. Cham: Imprint: Springer.
The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Eveline T. Feteris - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):459-470.
Eveline T. Feteris, Fundamental of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories of Justification of Judicial Decisions (1999). [REVIEW]William Twining - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (2):223-229.
The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Teleological Argumentation in a Legal Context.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (4):489-506.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
6 (#1,479,724)

6 months
2 (#1,249,707)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

A grammar of motives.Kenneth Burke - 1969 - Berkeley,: University of California Press.
A Grammar of Motives.Max Black - 1946 - Philosophical Review 55 (4):487.
Law, Fact and Narrative Coherence.Bernard S. Jackson - 1988 - Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.
A Grammar of Motives.Abraham Kaplan - 1947 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 5 (3):233-234.

View all 7 references / Add more references