Argumentative indicators in the adjudication of Russia-Ukraine dispute. A pragma-dialectical study

Abstract

The context of Russia–Ukraine war has given sufficient reasons to consider any standpoint of argumentation significant and potentially groundbreaking in dealing with threat and conflict. This article reports the findings of a pragma–dialectical study of argumentative indicators in the adjudication of a Russia–Ukraine dispute which mark the judgement–based understanding and arguments–infused processes that give solid grounds to establish the strategy of dealing with war. Linguistic choices in the form of argumentative indicators constitute keystones in the critical discussion, allowing the reconstruction and identification of speech act moves that are to be found in the patterned route of argumentation. As this analysis shows, the organisation of FTAs parameters and propositional attitude indicators significantly contribute to the sequentiality and complementariness of the argumentation process which proves to be highly effective and reasonable. Given the specificity of an adjudication as a type of a genre, its judiciary contextualisation, and legislative power, it is suggested that this argumentative practice makes for a threat and risk management strategy.