Strategic Maneuvering at the Confrontation Stage in the Depp versus Heard Legal Case
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes.v25i2.534Keywords:
critical discussion, effectiveness, pragma-dialectics , reasonableness , strategic maneuveringAbstract
Strategic maneuvering, an extension of pragma-dialectics, has three dimensions: topical potential, audience demands, and presentational devices. This study focuses on strategic maneuvering in the pragma-dialectical framework, specifically at the confrontation stage, to frame arguments within a legal context. The primary objective is to analyze how differences of opinion manifest as resistance and non-acceptance of viewpoints, aiming to achieve a balance between dialectical and rhetorical goals. The study centers on the arguments presented by Johnny Depp and Amber Heard’s attorneys during the opening statement of the defamation case. The main objectives are to attain reasonableness and effectiveness during the confrontation stage, while adhering to the rules of critical discussion and considering the expectations of the jury. An eclectic model is employed, drawing on Eemeren and Houtlosser’s fair trial (2006), which is grounded in critical discourse, as well as insights from Eemeren (2010), and McQuarrie and Mick (1996). This analysis revealed a balance between reasonableness and effectiveness during the confrontation, but also highlighted recurring violations of reasonableness during the argumentation stage. Furthermore, audience demands are consistently addressed in all stages except that of argumentation, and limited utilization of presentational techniques is observed.
References
Bertea, Stefano. (2004). ‘Certainty, reasonableness and argumentation in law.’ Argumentation, 18: 465-78.
Bussmann, Hadumod H. (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Collman, Ashley. (2022). ‘Johnny Depp’s trial against Amber Heard became the biggest news event in the country because it’s the perfect storm of America’s obsession with celebrity’. Insider Magazine, May 28. https://www.insider.com/why-the-world-became-obsessed-with-the-depp-v-heard-trial-2022-5[] (Retrieved on 26 February, 2024).
Cruse, Alan. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dahlman, Christian and Eveline Feteris. (2013). Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser . (1999). ‘Delivering the goods in critical discussion’. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, James Anthony Blair and Charles Arthur Willard. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 163-167. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://archive.org/details/proceedingsoffou0000unse_q1s1
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser. (2000). ‘Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework’. Argumentation, 14: 293-305. https://t.me/c/1930449834/249
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Houtlosser, Peter. (2002). ‘Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance’. In Frans H. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, 131-159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Eemeren, Frans van, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H. M. Wageman. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. The Netherlands: Springer.
Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst and Francisca Henkemans Snoeck. (2002). Argumentation Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Lawrence: Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. (2004). A systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. New York: Cambridge.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Houtlosser, Peter. (2006). ‘Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation’. Argumentation, 20(4): 381-392. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser and A. Francisca Sn Henkemans. (2007). Argumentative Indicators: A Pragma-dialectical Study. The Netherlands: Springer.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart, and Meuffels, Bert. (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-dialectical Discussion Rules. The Netherland: Springer.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Houtlosser, Peter. (2009). ‘Strategic maneuvering’. In Frans H. van Eemeren (ed), Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering, (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Eemeren, Frans H. van. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Eemeren, Frans H. van. (2017). ‘Argumentation theory and argumentative practice: A vital but complex relationship’. Informal Logic, 37(4): 322-350. https://t.me/c/1930449834/260.
Eemeren, Frans H. van. (2018). Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective: The Netherland: Springer.
Fairfax County Circuit Court. (2022). John C. Depp, II v. Amber Laura Heard. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/high-profile-cases
Feteris, T. Eveline. (1997). ‘A survey of 25 years of research on legal argumentation’. Argumentation, 11(3): 355-376.
Feteris, T. Eveline. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hage, Jaap. (2013). ‘Construction or reconstruction? On the function of argumentation in the law’. In Christian Dahlman, and Eveline Feteris (eds.), Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, 125-143. Dordrecht: Springer.
Law and Crime Network. (2022). Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Defamation Trial. [Video].YouTube. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoW1SIeAWaWb1IDY_WuLKvZygiJudUBSd
McGlone, Matthew. (2007). ‘What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor?’. Language and Communication, 27: 109-126.
McQuarrie, F. Edward, and Mick, David Glen. (1996). ‘Figures of rhetoric in advertising language’. The Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4): 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1086/209459
Merchant, Jason. (2010). ‘Three types of ellipsis’. In Francos Recanati, Isidora Stojanovic and Neftali Villanueva (eds.), Context-dependence, Perspective and Relativity, 143. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Puente, Maria. (2022). ‘Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard: Opening statements feel familiar to London trial from 2020’. SA TODAY April, 22. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/04/12/johnny-depp-v-amber-heard-opening-statements-begin-defamation-suit/7291025001/ (Retrieved on 26 February, 2024).
Reporting Depp vs. Heard (2022). Transcripts. https://reportingdeppvheard.net/depp-v-heard-2022/transcripts/ (Retrieved on 26 February, 2024).
Rosenblatt, Kalhan. (2022, Dec. 19). ‘Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial: Summary and timeline’. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-summary-timeline-rcna26136 (Retrieved on 26 February, 2024).
Tindale, Christopher William. (2006). ‘Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise’. Argumentation, 20: 447-466.
Walton, Douglas. (2002). Leal Argumentation and Evidence. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas. (2007). Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Walton, Douglas, Reed, Chris, and Macagno, Fabrizio. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yule, George. (2010). The study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
