A survey of 25 years of research on legal argumenation

Argumentation

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 355-376

  Feteris, E T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Argumentation in law; Jurisprudence; Legal argumentation; Logic; Rhetoric

Indexed keywords

EID: 42449089033     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1007794830151     Document Type: Review

References (157)

1. Aarnio, A.: 1977, On Legal Reasoning, Turan Yliopisto, Turku.
2. Aarnio, A.: 1987, The Rational as Reasonable. A Treatise of Legal Justification, Reidel, Dordrecht.
3. Aarnio, A., R. Alexy and A. Peczenik: 1981, 'The Foundation of Legal Reasoning', Rechtstheorie, Band 21(2), 133-158,
4. Aarnio, A., R. Alexy and A. Peczenik: Rechtstheorie, (3), 257-279,
5. Aarnio, A., R. Alexy and A. Peczenik: Rechtstheorie, (4), 423-448.
6. Aarnio, A., I. Niiniluoto and J. Uusitalo: 1981, Methodologie und Erkenntnistheorie der Juristischen Argumentation, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.
7. Alexy, R.: 1980, 'Die Logische Analyse Juristischer Entscheidungen', in Hassemer et al. (eds.), pp. 181-212.
8. Alexy, R.: 1989, A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Clarendon Press, Oxford
9. (Translation of: Theorie der Juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des Rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der Juristischen Begrundung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1978, Second edition 1991 with a reaction to critics).
10. Alexy, R. and A. Peczenik: 1990, 'The Concept of Coherence and its Significance for Discursive Rationality', Ratio Juris 3(1), 130-147.
11. Asbell Sheppard, S. and R. D. Rieke: 1983, 'Categories of Reasoning in Legal Argument', in Zarefsky et al. (eds.), pp. 235-250.
12. Ballweg, O.: 1982, 'Phronetik, Semiotik und Rhetorik', in Ballweg and Seibert (eds.), pp. 27-71.
13. Ballweg, O. and T. M. Seibert: 1982, Rhetorische Rechtstheorie. Zum 75. Geburtstag von Theodor Viehweg, K. Alber, Freiburg.
14. Benoit, W. L.: 1981, 'An Empirical Investigation of Argumentative Strategies Employed in Supreme Court Opinions', in Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 179-196.
15. Benoit, W. L.: 1989, 'Attorney Argumentation and Supreme Court Opinions', Argumentation and Advocacy 26(1), 22-38.
16. 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.
17. Benoit, W. L. and J. S. France: 1980, 'Analogical Reasoning in Legal Argumentation', in Rhodes and Newell (eds.), pp. 48-60.
18. 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.
19. Burton, S. J.: 1985, An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning, Little, Brown, Boston/Toronto.
20. Copi, I. (and C. Cohen): 1990, Introduction to Logic, Macmillan, New York (eighth edition).
21. 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.
22. Dicks, V. I.: 1981, 'Courtroom Rhetorical Strategies: Forensic and Deliberative Perspectives', Quarterly Journal of Speech 67, 178-192.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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 Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 213-241.
26. Eemeren, F. H. van: 1987, 'Argumentation Studies' Five Estates', in Wenzel (ed.), pp. 9-24.
27. Eemeren, F. H. van, E. T. Feteris, R. Grootendorst, T. van Haaften, W. den Harder, H. Kloosterhuis, T. Kraiger and J. Plug: 1991, Argumenteren voor Juristen. Het Analyseren en Schrijven van Juridische Betogen en Beleidsteksten (Argumentation for Lawyers) (second edition, first edition 1987), Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
28. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.
29. 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.
30. Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard: 1991, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, Sicsat, Amsterdam.
31. Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard: 1995, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation, Sicsat, Amsterdam.
32. Esser, J.: 1979, Juristisches Argumentieren im Wandel des Rechtsfindungskonzepts unseres Jahrhunderts, Winter, Heidelberg.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Feteris, E. T.: 1993a, 'The Judge as a Critical Antagonist in a Legal Process: A Pragma dialectical 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.
37. Feteris, E. T.: 1993b, 'Rationality in Legal Discussions: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective', Informal Logic XV(3), 179-188.
38. Feteris, E. T.: 1995, 'The Analysis and Evaluation of Legal Argumentation from a Pragma-dialectical Perspective', in F. 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.
39. Feteris, E. T. and J. Schuetz: 1996, Faces of North American and European Legal Argument. Argumentation.
40. Golden, J. L. and J. M. Makau: 1982, 'Perspectives on Judicial Reasoning', in R. E. McKErrow (ed.), Explorations in Rhetoric, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, pp. 157-178.
41. Golden, J. L. and J. J. Pilotta: 1986, Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs. Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman, Reidel, Dordrecht.
42. Golding, M. P.: 1984, Legal Reasoning, Knopf, New York.
43. Gottlieb, G.: 1968, The Logic of Choice. An Investigation of the Concepts of Rule and Rationality, George Allen and Unwin, London.
44. Gronbeck, B. E.: 1989, Spheres of Argument. Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale VA.
45. Günther, K.: 1989, 'Ein normativer Begriff der Kohärenz. Für eine Theorie der Juristischen Argumentation', Rechtstheorie, Band 20, 163-190.
46. Haarscher, G.: Chaim Perelman et la pensée contemporaine, Bruylant, Braxelles.
47. 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.
48. Habermas, J.: 1981, Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.
49. Habermas, J.: 1988, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 8, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
50. Habermas, J.: 1991, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.
51. (Translation of Moralbesusstsein und Kommunikatives Handeln, 1983), The MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass).
52. Habermas, J.: 1992, Faktizizät und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des Demokratischen Rechtsstaats, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.
53. Hagan, M. R.: 1976, 'Roe v. Wade: the Rhetoric of Fetal Life', Central States Speech Journal 27(3), 192-199.
54. Haft, F.: 1981, Juristische Rhetorik, Alber, Freiburg.
55. Hage, J. C., R. Leenes and A. R. Lodder: 1994, 'Hard Cases: a Procedural Approach', Artificial intelligence and law 2, 113-167.
56. 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.
57. Hassemer, W., A. Kaufmann and U. Neumann: 1980, Argumentation und Recht. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Beiheft neue Folge Nr. 14, F. Steiner, Wiesbaden.
58. Henket, M.: 1987, 'Ne Bis in Idem and Related Principles', in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 123-130.
59. Henket, M.: 1991, 'Analogy and Rules in Practical Reasoning', in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 790-800.
60. Henket, M.: 1992, 'On the Logical Analysis of Judicial Decisions', International Journal for the Semiotics of Law V(14), 152-164.
61. Henket, M. M. and P. J. van den Hoven: 1990, Juridische Vaardigheden in Argumentatief Verband. (Legal Skills in an Argumentative Context), Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
62. Herbeck, D. A.: 1995a, 'Crucial Legal Studies and Argumentation Theory', Argumentation 9(5), 719-729.
63. Herbeck, D. A.: 1995b, 'The Problems of Jurisprudence and Argumentation Theory', in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 3-123.
64. Hohmann, H.: 1991, 'Fallacies and Legal Argumentation', in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 776-781.
65. Hohmann, H.: 1995, 'Logic and Rhetoric in Legal Argumentation: Some Medieval Perspectives', in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 14-30.
66. Hollihan, T. A., P. Riley and K. Freadhoff: 1986, 'Arguing for Justice: An Analysis of Arguing in Small Claims Court', Journal of the American Forensic Association 22(4), 187-195.
67. Horn, N.: 1967, 'Zur Bedeutung der Topiklehre Theodor Viehwegs für eine Einheitliche Theorie des Juristischen Denkens', Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, pp. 601-608.
68. Horovitz, J.: 1972, Law and Logic. A Critical Account of Legal Argument, Springer, Wien.
69. Hoven, P. J. van den: 1988, 'Rechtszekerheid, Rechtvaardigheid, Verstaanbaarheid', Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 10(3), 209-219.
70. Hunsaker, D. M.: 1978, 'The Rhetoric of Brown v. Board of Education: Paradigm for Contemporary Social Protest', Southern Speech Communication Journal 43, 91-109.
71. Ilie, C.: 1995, 'The Validity of Rhetorical Questions as Arguments in the Courtroom', in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 73-88.
72. Janas, M.: 1995, 'Structure, Aesthetics, Rhetoric and Posner's Theory of Justice', in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 97-110.
73. Jensen, J. C: 1957, The Nature of Legal Argument, Blackwell, Oxford.
74. Die Juristische Argumentation: 1972, F. Steiner, Wiesbaden.
75. Kalinowski, G.: 1972, La Logique des Normes, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
76. Kaptein, H.: 1994, 'E contrario Arguments in Law: From Interpretation to Implicit Premisses', International Journal for the Semiotics of Law VI(18), 315-324.
77. Kaptein, H.: 1995, 'The Redundancy of Precedent and Analogy', in F. H. van Eemeren et al., IV, 122-137.
78. Klinger, G.: 1989, 'Rhetoric's Wide-angle Lense: How Legal Vision can be Enhanced with Rhetorical Glasses', in Grondbeck (ed.), pp. 359-363.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Klug, U.: 1951, Juristische Logik. (fourth revised edition 1982), Springer, Berlin.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. Krawietz, W. and R. Alexy: 1983, Metatheorie Juristischer Argumentation, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.
85. Krawietz, W., K. Opalek, A. Reczenik and A. Schramm: 1979, Argumentation und Hermeneutik in der Jurispruden, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.
86. Lempereur, A. 1991, Legal Argument. Argumentation 5(3), pp. 000-000.
87. Levi, E. H.: 1949, An introduction to Legal Reasoning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
88. Luebke, S. W.: 1995, 'Informal Logic Issues in Practical Testing Context', in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 31-41.
89. MacCormick, N.: 1978, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
90. MacCormick, N.: 1984, 'Coherence in Legal Justification', in Peczenik et al. (eds.), pp. 235-252.
91. MacCormick, N.: 1992, 'Legal Deduction, Legal Predicates and Expert Systems', International Journal for the Semiotics of law V(14), 181-202.
92. MacCormick, D. N. and R. S. Summers: 1991, Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study. Dartmouth, Aldershot.
93. McEvoy, S. T.: 1991, 'Issues in Common Law Pleading and Ancient Rhetoric', Argumentation 5(3), 245-262.
94. 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.
95. Makau, J. M.: 1984, 'The Supreme Court and Reasonableness', Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 379-396.
96. Maneli, M.: 1993, Perelman's New Rhetoric as Philosophy and Methodology for the Next Century, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
97. Matlon, R. J.: 1994, Legal Communication. Argumentation and Advocacy 30(4).
98. Neumann, U.: 1986, Juristische Argumentationstheorie, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.
99. Neumann, U., J. Rahlf and E. von Savigny: 1976, Juristische Dogmatik un Wissenschaftstheorie, Beck, München.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. Pavenik, 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.
103. Peczenik, A.: 1983, The Basis of Legal Justification. Lund.
104. Peczenik, A.: 1989, On Law and Reason. Reidel, Dordrecht (translation of 'Ratten och Fornuftet', 1986).
105. Perelman, Ch.: 1963, The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument, Routledge and Keagan Paul, London.
106. Perelman, Ch.: 1967, Justice, Random House, New York.
107. Perelman, Ch.: 1976, Logique Juridique. Nouvelle Rhétorique, Dalloz, Paris.
108. Perelman, Ch.: 1980, Justice, Law and Argument. Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning, Reidel, Dordrecht etc.
109. Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1958, La Nouvelle Rhetorique. Traite de l'Argumentation, l'Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.
110. Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
111. (English translation of La nouvelle rhetorique, 1958).
112. 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.
113. Plug, J.: 1995, 'The Rational Reconstruction of Additional Considerations in Judicial Decisions'., in F. H. van Eemeren et al., pp. 61-72.
114. Plumer, G.: 1995, 'Testing for Assumption Recognition', in Van Eemeren et al., IV, 152-160.
115. Posner, R. A.: 1988, Law and Literature: A Misunderstood Relation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.
116. Posner, R. A.: 1990, The Problems of Jurisprudence, Chicago Illinois, University of Chicago.
117. Prakken, H.: 1993, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Dissertation Amsterdam. Amsterdam.
118. Prott, L. V.: 1991, 'Argumentation in International Law', Argumentation 5(3), 299-310.
119. Rieke, R. D.: 1981, 'Investigating Legal Argument as a Field', in Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 152-159.
120. Rieke, R. D.: 1991, 'The Judicial Dialogue', in Argumentation 5(1), 39-56.
121. 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.
122. 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.
123. Rieke, R. D.: 1991, 'The Judicial Dialogue', Argumentation 5(1), 39-56.
124. Rieke, R. D. and R. K. Stutman: 1990, Communication in Legal Advocacy, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia A. S.
125. 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.
126. Rödig, J.: 1971, 'Kritik des Normlogischen Schliessens', Theory and Decision 2, 79-93.
127. Russow, L. M. and M. Curd: 1988, Principles of Reasoning, St. Martin's Press, New York.
128. Scallen, E. A.: 1995, 'American Legal Argumentation: The Law and Literature Movement', Argumentation 9(5), 705-717.
129. Schreckenberger, W.: 1978, Rhetorische Semiotik. Analyse von Texten des Grundgesetzes und von Rhetorischen Grundstrukturen der Argumentation des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes, K. Alber, Freiburg.
130. Schuetz, J.: 1981, 'The Genesis of Argumentative Forms and Fields', in Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 279-295.
131. Schuetz, J.: 1986, 'Overlays of Argument in Legislative Process', Journal of the American Forensic Association 22(4), 223-234.
132. Schuetz, J.: 1991, 'Perelman's Rule of Justice in Mexican Appellate Courts', in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 804-812.
133. Schuetz, J. and K. Snedaker: 1988, Communications Strategies and the Litigation Process, Southern Illinois University Press, Corbondale IL.
134. 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.
135. 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.
136. Soeteman, A.: 1989, Logic in Law. Remarks on Logic and Rationality in Normative Reasoning, Especially in Law, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
137. Soeteman, A., E. A. Huppes-Cluysenaer and L. K. van Zaltbommel: 1990, Taalbeheersing voor Juristen. (Speech communication for lawyers), Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
138. Stone, J.: 1964, Legal System and Lawyers' Reasonings, Stevens, London.
139. Struck, G.: 1977, Zur Theorie Juristischer Argumentation, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.
140. Tammelo, I.: 1969, Outlines of Modern Legal Logic, Steiner, Wiesbaden.
141. Tammelo, I., G. Moens and P. Brouwer: 1981, 'De Tegenformulemethode en haar Rechtslogische Toepassingen', Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Rechtsfilosofie en Rechtstheorie 10, 55-65.
142. Tolumin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
143. Toulmin, S., R. Rieke and A. Janik: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning (second edition, first edition 1978), Macmillan, New York.
144. Twigg, R.: 1989, 'Narrative Justice. An Analysis of Selected Supreme Court Decisions', in Gronbeck (ed.), pp. 86-93.
145. Twining, W. and D. Miers: 1994, How to Do Things with Rules, Butterworths, London (Third edition, first edition 1991).
146. Viehweg, Th.: 1954, Topik und Jurisprudenz. (fifth revised edition 1974), Beck, München.
147. Walker, G. B. and S. E. Daniels: 1995, 'Argument and Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems', Argumentation 9(5), 689-692.
148. Weinberger, O.: 1970, Rechtslogik. Versuch einer Anwendung Moderner Logik auf das Juristiche Denken, Springer, Wien.
149. 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.
150. Wenzel, J.: 1987, Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the fifth summer conference on argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale VA.
151. White, J. B.: 1984, When Words Lose their Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
152. White, J. B.: 1989, 'What can a Lawyer Learn from Literature?', Harvard Law Review 102(8), 204-207.
153. White, J. B.: 1990, Justice as Translocation. An Essay in Cultural and Legal Criticism, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
154. Wiethoff, W. E.: 1985, 'Critical Perspectives on Perelman's Philosophy of Legal Argument', Journal of the american Forensic Association 22, 88-95.
155. Wroblewski, J.: 1974, 'Legal Syllogism and Rationality of Judicial Decision', Rechtstheorie Band 14(5), 33-46.
156. 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.
157. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes: 1981, Dimensions of Argument. Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale VA.