This paper lays out theoretical considerations and first analyses on the giving of and asking for reasons among preschool children age 3–7 in natural child-child play interaction. We attempt to give an integrated, multimodal analysis of the verbal, paraverbal and extraverbal means of these reasoning activities. In our data we find many instances of younger children who are giving reasons during play interaction. Often these reasoning activities do not occur in an open conflict and are not primarily directed at working out a local dissensus. Rather, these interactions seem to foreground the epistemic function of argumentation. We will argue that these practices should be understood and researched as early forms of argumentation.

To grasp criminal courts as truth spots, one needs to go beyond their symbolic applications to consider their interactional and epistemic implications. In this study, the authors compare the English Crown Court, German District Court, and U.S. State Court as “places on display” and as “places denied.” These perspectives comment on the courts in light of their different interaction orders and their different positions in knowledge processes. For the latter, the authors utilize Knorr's taxonomy of laboratory—experiment relations. The article arrives at one basic distinction: the procedural replacement of trial hearings by deal-oriented plea bargaining in the U.S. context. In contrast, the English and the German courts involve a preference for trial hearings and for fully developed cases, which, however, does not forbid but encourage forms of trial-oriented plea bargain.

No abstract

This article explores the binding forces that emerge in criminal cases. Using ethnographic data, we explore how defendants are bound to their initial defenses. In addition, we ask whether the binding effect works similarly or differently in three distinct procedures. Our research is rooted in the analytical concepts of “procedural history” and “discourse formation” as presented by Niklas Luhmann and Michel Foucault. Both theories describe past statements as “virulent” in present stages: participants have to take their own histories into account when engaging in current dealings; current statements must confront past statements, generating inconsistency and contradiction. Empirically, the three authors explore variations of binding in the light of eight microhistorical case narratives collected during fieldwork in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These microhistories trace the binding effects of early defenses through pretrial and trial. Our observations lead us to conclude that the binding mechanism appears less determinative in practice than in the claims of theory. Alongside the several effects of binding, we identify a variety of protections, interruptions, and even unbinding effects.

No abstract