Abstract
The present paper explores the nature of argument types in separate opinions by analysing a corpus of ten judgments issued in English by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between 2020 and 2024. The qualitative analysis primarily draws on the pragma-dialectical categorisation of argument schemes to investigate whether the separate opinions at issue reveal a predilection by ECtHR judges for symptomatic, comparison or causal arguments. The results suggest that the three argument types are invariably used, in that they enable ECtHR judges to shape the complex argumentative defence of their standpoints. Symptomatic arguments mostly occur as arguments from authority; comparison arguments are mainly harnessed to establish analogies with previous judgments; and pragmatic arguments are used primarily to warn against the detrimental legal consequences of the majority decisions. Although the latter occur less frequently, the three argument types all appear functional to enhancing the acceptability of contra-argumentation in separate opinions.
Funding
This study contributes to the national research programme Rights and Prejudice: Linguistic and Legal Implications of Gendered Discourses in Judicial Spaces [GenDJus], financed by the Italian Ministry of University and Research for 2023-2025(NoP2022FNH9B).
References
Boginskaya, Olga. 2023. Dissenting with conviction: Boosting in challenging the majority opinion. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7, no. 2: 257–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2073
Bustamante, Thomas, and Christian Dahlman, eds. 2015. Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16148-8
Chafe, Wallace L. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, eds. Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 261–272. Norwood (NJ): Ablex Publishing.
Cruz García, Laura. 2017. Evidentials in adverstising: A sample study. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 12, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2017.7074
Feteris, Eveline T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9219-2_8
Feteris, Eveline T. 2017a. The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions. In Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 71–91. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.05fet
Feteris, Eveline T. 2017b. Argumentative patterns with symptomatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions. In Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 125–138. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.08fet
Garssen, Bart. 2017. Argumentative patterns with argumentation by example in legislative debate in the European Parliament. In Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 109–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.07gar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2018. Values and valuations in judicial discourse. A corpus-assisted study of (dis)respect in US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 53, no. 66: 61–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0004
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2020. Communicating dissent in judicial opinions: A comparative, genre-based analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 33, no. 2: 381–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09711-y
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2024. Language and legal judgments. Evaluation and argument in judicial discourse. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003333302
Mazzi, Davide. 2018. Phraseology, argumentation and identity in Supreme Court of Ireland’s judgments on language policy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 11, no. 3, 315–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.32729
Mazzi, Davide. 2022. “Without proof of negligence or a causative connection”: On causal argumentation in the discourse of the Supreme Court of Ireland’s judgments on data protection. In Law, language and the courtroom: Legal linguistics and the discourse of judges, eds. Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski and Gianluca Pontrandolfo, 112–125. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153771-10
McKeown, Jamie. 2021. A corpus-based examination of reflexive metadiscourse in majority and dissent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Pragmatics 186: 224–235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.019
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles (6th edition).
Peruzzo, Katia. 2019. National law in supranational case-law: A linguistic analysis of European Court of Human Rights judgments in English. Trieste: EUT.
Plug, José H. 2020. Separate opinions as argumentative activity type. In Reason to dissent: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Vol. III, eds. Catarina D. Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan A. van Laar and Bart Verheij, 267–278. Rickmansworth: College Publications.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson, Erik C. W., Krabbe, Christian Plantin, Douglas N. Walton, Charles A. Willard, John Woods and David Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2003. Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, eds. Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 289–292. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Available at https://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2002-fallacies-as-derailments-of-strategic-maneuvering-the-argumentum-ad-verecundiam-a-case-in-point/ (last accessed 24th April 2025).
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2017a. Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 7–29. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2017b. The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. In Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 157–180. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.10van
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2017. Argumentation. Analysis and evaluation. London/New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315401140
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen. 2019. Argument schemes: Extending the pragma-dialectical approach. In Proceedings of the ninth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, eds. Bart Garssen, David Godden, Gordon R. Mitchell and Jean H. M. Wagemans, 308–318. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park (PA): The Pennsylvania State University Press.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Emanuele Brambilla
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
When submitting a paper the author agrees to the following publishing agreement and processing personal data.
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT, COPYRIGHT LICENSE, PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING CONSENT
This is a publication agreement and copyright license (“Agreement”) regarding a written manuscript currently submitted via Pressto platform
(“Article”) to be published in Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Journal”).
The parties to this Agreement are:
the Author or Authors of the submitted article (individually, or if more than one author, collectively, “Author”) and Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Publisher”), address al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, represented by its editor in chief Aleksandra Matulewska.
§1. LICENSE OF COPYRIGHT
a) The Author and the Publisher agree that the Author grants a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is incorporated herein by reference and is further specified at Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 copyright license in the Article to the general public.
b) The Author grants to the Publisher a royalty-free, worldwide nonexclusive license to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, translate and use the Article in any form, either separately or as part of a collective work, including but not limited to a nonexclusive license to publish the Article in an issue of the Journal, copy and distribute individual reprints of the Article, authorize reproduction of the entire Article in another publication, and authorize reproduction and distribution of the Article or an abstract thereof by means of computerized retrieval systems (such as Westlaw, Lexis and SSRN). The Author retains ownership of all rights under copyright in the Article, and all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author grants to the Publisher the power to assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer any and all licenses expressly granted to the Publisher under this Agreement.
d) Republication. The Author agrees to require that the Publisher be given credit as the original publisher in any republication of the Article authorized by the Author. If the Publisher authorizes any other party to republish the Article under the terms of paragraphs 1c and 1 of this Agreement, the Publisher shall require such party to ensure that the Author is credited as the Author.
§2. EDITING OF THE ARTICLE
a) The Author agrees that the Publisher may edit the Article as suitable for publication in the Journal. To the extent that the Publisher’s edits amount to copyrightable works of authorship, the Publisher hereby assigns all right, title, and interest in such edits to the Author.
§3. WARRANTIES
a) The Author represents and warrants that to the best of the Author’s knowledge the Article does not defame any person, does not invade the privacy of any person, and does not in any other manner infringe upon the rights of any person. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher against all such claims.
b) The Author represents and warrants that the Author has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant the licenses granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author represents and warrants that the Article furnished to the Publisher has not been published previously. For purposes of this paragraph, making a copy of the Article accessible over the Internet, including, but not limited to, posting the Article to a database accessible over the Internet, does not constitute prior publication so long as the as such copy indicates that the Article is not in final form, such as by designating such copy to be a “draft,” a “working paper,” or “work-in-progress”. The Author agrees to hold harmless the Publisher, its licensees and distributees, from any claim, action, or proceeding alleging facts that constitute a breach of any warranty enumerated in this paragraph.
§4. TERM
a) The agreement was concluded for an unspecified time.
§5. PAYMENT
a) The Author agrees and acknowledges that the Author will receive no payment from the Publisher for use of the Article or the licenses granted in this Agreement.
b) The Publisher agrees and acknowledges that the Publisher will not receive any payment from the Author for publication by the Publisher.
§6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
a) This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Author and the Publisher with respect to the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the Article, and each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements have been made by or on behalf of any party except those warranties and agreements embodied in this Agreement.
b) In all cases not regulated by this Agreement, legal provisions of Polish Copyright Act and Polish Civil Code shall apply.
c) Any disputes arising from the enforcement of obligations connected with this Agreement shall be resolved by a court competent for the headquarters of the Publisher.
d) Any amendments or additions to the Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorised representative of both parties, otherwise being ineffective.
e) This Agreement is signed electronically and the submission of the article via the PRESSto platform is considered as the conclusion of the Agreement by the Author and the Publisher.
f) Clause for consent to the processing of personal data - general
g) The Author shall give his or her consent to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of persons physical in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation) for the purpose and in connection with making publications available on the PRESSto scientific journals platform and DeGruyter platform, guaranteeing the security of services rendered, and improving them.
I HAVE READ AND AGREE FULLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The Author The Publisher