On the Question of Logical Analysis of Argumentation in Legal Discourse

Abstract

The article highlights the main problems that arise during the logical analysis of argumentation in legal discourse. Based on the author's approach to understanding the logical analysis of legal argumentation, the possibilities of overcoming them are proposed. According to the author, in the process of conducting a logical analysis of argumentation in legal discourse, the following interrelated problems arise: the first is a problem associated with an ambiguous understanding of the meaning of the word "logic" when it is used in research on legal argumentation (logic as a science or a certain logical theory, logic as a model, formal or informal logic); the second is a problem related to the existence of different interpretations of the concept of "logical analysis", as a result of which there is uncertainty in the use of methods and means of conducting such an analysis. The following possible steps to overcome these problems are proposed: firstly, in research on legal argumentation, when conducting a logical analysis of argumentation in legal discourse the meaning of the word "logic" should be noted (logic as a science or a certain logical theory, logic as a model, formal or informal logic), used in this context; secondly, in the process of such an analysis, clearly define the meaning of the used concepts "analysis", and "model"; thirdly, to proceed from the fact that taking into account that formal and informal elements are connected in legal thinking, the logical analysis of legal argumentation can be understood as the application of methods, techniques, means of all logical knowledge in solving its problems.