Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation

[1]  Ray Gama.  The Nature and the Place of Presumptions in Law and Legal Argumentation , 2017 .

[2]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues , 2017 .

[3]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Profiles of Dialogue for Relevance , 2016 .

[4]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning , 2016 .

[5]  Izabela Skoczeń.  Minimal Semantics and Legal Interpretation , 2016 .

[6]  B. Pirker,et al.  International Law and Pragmatics. An Account of Interpretation in International Law , 2016 .

[7]  Douglas Walton,et al.  An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation , 2016, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[8]  Brian G. Slocum.  Ordinary Meaning: A Theory of the Most Fundamental Principle of Legal Interpretation , 2015 .

[9]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Argument Evaluation and Evidence , 2015 .

[10]  Fabrizio Douglas Macagno,et al.  Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments , 2015 .

[11]  D. Walton,et al.  Emotive Language in Argumentation , 2014 .

[12]  Scott Brewer.  Logic, probability, and presumptions in legal reasoning , 2013 .

[13]  John B. Goodenough,et al.  Measuring assurance case confidence using Baconian probabilities , 2013, 2013 1st International Workshop on Assurance Cases for Software-Intensive Systems (ASSURE).

[14]  D. Walton,et al.  Presumptions in Legal Argumentation , 2012 .

[15]  Fabrizio Macagno.  Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions , 2012 .

[16]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  The Presumptions of Meaning: Hamblin and Equivocation , 2011 .

[17]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies , 2011, Synthese.

[18]  R. Shuy.  The Language of Perjury Cases , 2011 .

[19]  F. Poggi.  Law and Conversational Implicatures , 2011 .

[20]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual Congruity , 2011 .

[21]  A. Capone.  On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes) , 2010 .

[22]  D. Walton,et al.  Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions , 2009 .

[23]  P. Hagoort,et al.  Defeasible reasoning in high-functioning adults with autism: Evidence for impaired exception-handling , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  C. Hutton.  Language, Meaning and the Law , 2009 .

[25]  Andrei Marmor.  The Pragmatics of Legal Language , 2008 .

[26]  S. Soames.  ESSAY FIFTEEN. Interpreting Legal Texts: What Is, and What Is Not, Special about the Law , 2008 .

[27]  K. Beckett.  Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. By Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma , 2006 .

[28]  N. Rescher.  Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition , 2006 .

[29]  Abner S. Greene.  The Missing Step of Textualism , 2006 .

[30]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity , 2005 .

[31]  J. Atlas.  Logic, Meaning, and Conversation , 2005 .

[32]  Lawrence M. Solan,et al.  Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice , 2005 .

[33]  Marcelo Dascal,et al.  Interpretation and understanding , 2003 .

[34]  J. Manning.  The Absurdity Doctrine , 2003 .

[35]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Legal argumentation and evidence , 2002 .

[36]  J. Saul.  Speaker Meaning, What is Said, and What is Implicated , 2002 .

[37]  S. Levinson.  Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .

[38]  Jacob L. Mey,et al.  Pragmatics: An Introduction , 2001 .

[39]  Nick Chater,et al.  Rationality In An Uncertain World: Essays In The Cognitive Science Of Human Understanding , 1998 .

[40]  F. Kauffeld,et al.  Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing , 1998 .

[41]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[42]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Three levels of meaning , 1995 .

[43]  N. Maccormick.  Argumentation and interpretation in law , 1993 .

[44]  Robert S. Summers,et al.  Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study , 1991 .

[45]  M. Dascal,et al.  Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law , 1988 .

[46]  R. Dworkin.  Law's Empire , 1987 .

[47]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[48]  J. Searle.  Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts , 1979 .

[49]  Christopher Wolfe,et al.  Woodrow Wilson: Interpreting the Constitution , 1979, The Review of Politics.

[50]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[51]  Turaeva Umida Shukhratovna.  Law and Language , 1907 .

[52]  Lucia Morra.  Conversational Implicatures in Normative Texts , 2016 .

[53]  Lucia Morra.  Widening the Gricean Picture to Strategic Exchanges , 2016 .

[54]  B. Butler.  Law and the Primacy of Pragmatics , 2016 .

[55]  B. Butler.  Transparency and Context in Legal Communication: Pragmatics and Legal Interpretation , 2016 .

[56]  Wolfgang Ziegler,et al.  An Introduction To Reasoning , 2016 .

[57]  S. Jackson,et al.  Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango , 2014 .

[58]  Andrei Marmor.  The Language of Law , 2014 .

[59]  D. Walton,et al.  Emotive Language in Argumentation: Contents , 2014 .

[60]  Mandy Simons,et al.  On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions , 2013 .

[61]  D. Walton,et al.  Implicatures as Forms of Argument , 2013 .

[62]  A. Capone.  The role of pragmatics in (re)constructing the rational law-maker , 2013 .

[63]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Argumentation Schemes for Statutory Interpretation , 2012 .

[64]  Ra Carston,et al.  Legal Texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory. , 2012 .

[65]  M. Kissine.  Sentences, utterances, and speech acts , 2012 .

[66]  D. Stein.  Interpretation in Law , 2012 .

[67]  Riccardo Guastini.  Interpretare e argomentare , 2011 .

[68]  Di Donna,et al.  Interpretazione della legge , 2009 .

[69]  I. Kecskés,et al.  Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: a socio-cognitive approach , 2009 .

[70]  Laurence R. Horn.  WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning , 2009 .

[71]  J. Pollock.  Reasoning: Defeasible Reasoning , 2008 .

[72]  D. Kennedy.  A Left Phenomenological Critique of the Hart/Kelsen Theory of Legal Interpretation , 2007 .

[73]  K. Jaszczolt.  Meaning merger: Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality , 2006 .

[74]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[75]  Kasia M. Jaszczolt,et al.  Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication , 2005 .

[76]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Logics of Conversation , 2005, Studies in natural language processing.

[77]  seguindo,et al.  INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION , 2004 .

[78]  F. Kauffeld,et al.  The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and the Burden of Proof , 2003 .

[79]  L. Solan.  The Clinton Scandal: Some Legal Lessons from Linguistics , 2002 .

[80]  D. Dyzenhaus.  Recrafting the rule of law : the limits of legal order , 1999 .

[81]  Charles R. Priest.  A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law , 1997 .

[82]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Reasoning with Rules , 1997 .

[83]  Laurence R. Horn.  Vehicles of Meaning: Unconventional Semantics and Unbearable Interpretations , 1995 .

[84]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[85]  M. B. Sinclair.  Law and Language: The Role of Pragmatics in Statutory Interpretation , 1985 .

[86]  F. Easterbrook.  Legal Interpretation and the Power of the Judiciary , 1984 .

[87]  J. Atlas,et al.  It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version) , 1981 .

[88]  Giovanni Tarello.  L'interpretazione della legge , 1980 .

[89]  S. Levinson.  Activity types and language , 1979, Linguistics.