Does judicial interpretation of IIAs produce epistemic ‘authority’? Interpretation can mean both the process of finding out what texts mean and guidance to the concretisation of abstract general norms in individual instances. In the second sense, interpretation is subconsciously used to narrow the freedom of deciders; a range of interpretative tools is used to generate a quasi-formal unity of meaning across IIAs. Systemic integration is the most used and most potent tool. It enjoins us to assume that meanings are identical, but this is baseless: taking into account external rules could just as easily be the basis for a divergence. However, customary law is less certain and precise than assumed. From the perspective of peer-accepted reasoning-before-decision, the interpreter takes meanings, not external rules, into account. Arbitral tribunals in fact interpret IIAs in light not of a customary norm but of other investment tribunals’ understanding of the meaning of other treaty norms. On that perspective, there is no distinction between interpretative tools. Interpretation cannot unify investment law because it does not change the law, only certain brute facts.

This chapter examines the contextual constraints and requirements of argumentative, political and legal discourse, focusing on their bridging points as well as on where they depart. While political discourse and legal discourse are representatives of public discourse and institutional discourse with political discourse also constituting media discourse, argumentative discourse can be found across various discourse domains ranging from political and legal discourse to mundane, everyday talk. The first part provides an analysis of the pragmatics of argumentative discourse, concentrating on the communicative function of argumentative strategies and their generalized and particularized realizations across different discourse domains. The second part examines political discourse as communicative action considering the multilayeredness of production and reception formats, and the third part gives an analysis of legal discourse. In the final part the strategic use of argumentative strategies is discussed in the context of political and legal discourse.

This chapter examines both the roots of sociopragmatics and current understandings of the field. It starts by positioning sociopragmaticswithin pragmatics, pointing out some particular difficulties with its conception. After consideration of whether J. L. Austin’s work could be said to be an early precursor, the foundations of sociopragmatics in the work of Geoffrey N. Leech and Jenny Thomas are reviewed, including the distinction they propose between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics, a distinction, it is noted, that has gained traction in certain sub-fields of pragmatics (e.g. cross-cultural pragmatics). The penultimate section examines the role of context in definitions of sociopragmatics, arguing that meso-level contextual notions are key. Finally, a definition of sociopragmatics is proposed

This chapter examines cross-cultural and intercultural approaches to sociopragmatic dimensions of language use. After an initial introduction, the first main section clarifies and discusses some key concepts and issues, including ‘culture’ and ‘context’, as they have been conceptualized within cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics; the distinctions between cross-cultural and intercultural research perspectives; and context and the interconnections between context and culture. It then proceeds to review some of the main research findings deriving from cross-cultural work on speech acts and cultural scripts, as well as cognitive and sociocultural perspectives on sociopragmatic aspects of intercultural communication. It includes authentic samples of data that illustrate a number of the above issues. Finally, the chapter reflects on the main theoretical challenges and opportunities associated with addressing the sociopragmatic aspects of language use from cross-cultural and intercultural perspectives, providing a critical summary and identifying promising areas for future research.

Politeness and sociopragmatics have long been aligned since they were first proposed as areas for serious scholarly research but have since also grown into large, diffuse areas of research in their own right. The aim of this chapter is to consider synergies between these two areas of research. The chapter begins by reviewing the roots of connections between sociopragmatics and (im)politeness before briefly overviewing (im)politeness theories and the role that the first/second-order distinction can play in distinguishing between different approaches in the field. We then discuss some key sociopragmatic concepts that have come to play an important role in (im)politeness research, including context, strategies, indirectness and norms. This leads into a case study of offence-taking that illustrates how sociopragmatics and (im)politeness research now have a much broader scope, both methodological and theoretically, than earlier analyses that tended to focus on the politeness values of single utterances. We conclude by considering some of the key issues that will likely shape ongoing development of (im)politeness research, including the role of interdisciplinarity, the use of a greater range of data types and methods and the increasing need for systematic meta-theorization in the field.

This Chapter outlines four methodological and four substantive contributions of the book. By addressing the frequent neglect of remedies in human rights law, the book brings human rights closer to the reality of their frequent violation, especially for less advantaged people. It also examines the inter-relations and cross-fertilization of remedies in domestic and international law. It reveals remedies as a fruitful site for comparative law. This includes American remedial exceptionalism and differences between regional supra-national human rights courts. This Chapter highlights the book’s development of an overarching conceptual structure for remedies. Substantively, the book argues that familiar proportionality principles can improve remedial decision-making and make it more transparent. It also outlines similarities between South African engagement orders and the duty to consult Indigenous peoples. In both cases, engagement can result in consensual agreements, but also can limit rights. The two-track approach recognizes that remedies should compensate for past harms and prevent immediate irreparable harms, but also that they should prevent repetitive violations in the future. Individual remedies can recognize remedial failure and start another cycle of two-track individual and systemic remedies.

The analysis in this chapter emphasises that there can only ever be two places that law, in its present state, can lead embryos to: a woman’s womb, or its own destruction and disposal. Ultimately, this chapter has been developed with a view to answering: how might we use a liminal lens to bring lessons from ‘the gothic’, from conceptualisation to realisation? This chapter addresses the latter in four sections. First, it briefly takes stock of the analysis and ‘lessons’ highlighted by the book so far, before going on to synthesise this analysis, and in doing so, considering the ways in which law can lead embryos out of liminality. Second, it focuses on the roles of persons in embryonic processes in vitro; and Third, it draws out the contours of a context-based approach, including what the approach is not; Finally, it, discusses the potential effects of a context-based approach for the issues (i.e. the contours of the ‘legal gap’) discussed in Part One of this book. It suggests that a context-based approach has the potential to justify affording embryos in vitro different ‘statuses’ depending on the relationally guided and defined pathway on which it is, or onto which it is put.

This chapter outlines the rationale for the volume as well as its scope and structure. The theoretical and empirical bases for the study of corrective feedback as well as ways to employ corrective feedback in second language instruction are presented first followed by the aims of the book, its target audience, and a description of the book’s structure and content.

Classroom-based research concerned with corrective feedback plays a critical role in our understanding of how contextual factors shape teaching and learning, as well as our understanding of research. This chapter draws on descriptive and experimental studies investigating corrective feedback in the classroom to examine the role of context and the ways in which contextual factors have been considered, and at times neglected, in research. It highlights how both macro and micro dimensions of classroom contexts have had an impact on the ways in which researchers design, carry out, and interpret their work and teachers might draw on findings for classroom practice. Discussion explores how classrooms have and will continue to change, making a consideration of context imperative beyond a variable to be accounted for in research. The chapter suggests that the diversity of classroom contexts be leveraged to enrich the research

Disputes over promising and contracting arise from contextual tension between a promisor's self-directed goals and her commitments to the relationship.

The quality of any research is undoubtedly based on a sound methodological approach, and this is certainly true for acculturation psychology. Unfortunately, acculturation psychology has had its own challenges and limitations. In this chapter, we will review the development and evolution of models, measures and methods that are specific to psychological acculturation research as well as explore the mechanisms underlying acculturation processes. We approach this by describing three generations of acculturation theory and research in terms of their areas of emphasis and major contributions to the field: (i) Models; (ii) Measurements and Methods; and (iii) Mechanisms. We conclude with a note on re-visioning acculturation and speculate about the next cycle of developments.

The introduction begins by articulating the volume’s two main aims: to offer a rich account of the origins of the new modernist studies (part 1) and to suggest possible new paths of inquiry for the field in the near future (part 2). The introduction then surveys key features of the new modernist studies; examines ongoing debates over what the term “modernism” can encompass; and considers the position of modernist studies vis-à-vis recent critiques of contextualist scholarship. Throughout, it recurs to the strong institutional grounding by which the new modernist studies has been shaped. It also highlights how the collection’s individual chapters speak to the new modernist studies’ intersections with other areas of inquiry; to the continuing importance of examining modernist works in relation to non-, anti-, or not quite modernist ones; and to the value of working close analysis of textual intricacies together with elaboration of historical and cultural contexts.

In the Introduction to this Critical Guide to Hume’s Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (EPM) we bring to light several reasons for which this book merits attention, and we offer an overview of the chapters. The Guide reveals Hume’s commitment to his earlier principles but also his shift in style and focus. It contributes to a general understanding of Hume’s position in his time, as a typical Enlightenment philosopher with an unorthodox agenda, and in ours, as a thinker whose views are alive in contemporary debates. EPM was Hume’s favorite performance, and this guide supports Hume’s ambition to see EPM receive the attention and study he thought it deserved.

Section 4 of An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (EPM), “Political Society,” treats a seemingly eclectic collection of subjects. A key to understanding this section lies in Hume’s understanding of the relationship between history, context, and politics. One of the most significant changes he made to his presentation of the political virtues when he recast it for EPM was to drop the conjectural history that had figured prominently in the account he published in the Treatise. This change reflected his deep appreciation of the importance of history and context in the development of conventions of political society and sharpened his critique of social contract theory and republican political thought. On Hume’s account, all of the virtues necessary for life in society are valued for their utility. However, though humans share a universal need for rules to govern their interactions, the specific rules that emerge in particular contexts are rarely objectively necessary. The conventions of political society are not the products of rational calculation but, instead, often arise from historical accidents and develop through a process of habituation. For this reason, the conventions of any particular society, even those that promote universal interests, can only be fully understood contextually.

This chapter considers key aspects of the context that affect participants’ judgements of other people’s behaviour as well as their own. It starts by drawing an important distinction between context and the focal event and points out that while participants evaluate the focal event, that focal event is embedded in a context that frames interpretation and hence needs to be understood conceptually. The chapter explores it from two main angles: the scene and the participants, unpacking each of these angles in turn and considering how cultural factors may influence participants’ conceptualisation and interpretation of the various components of the context. The discussion not only emphasises that context is particularly important in intercultural encounters, but also that it cannot be limited to linguistic context, or even to aspects of contexts that can be studied with the conventional inventory of politeness research. Individuals bring a complex cluster of pre-existing extralinguistic and extra-contextual knowledge to interactions, and this cluster may underlie a striking variety of miscommunications in contexts where common ground is minimal. This, in turn, implies that any theory of context in intercultural politeness needs to be multidisciplinary in character. There are three main sections to the chapter: scene; participants; focal event.

This final chapter of the book considers the implications of its findings for the intercultural field. The chapter explores a number of facets that are important both conceptually and from an applied point of view, including the relevance of ‘relating’ to intercultural competence and training, factors that affect the relating process, and the nature of the culture, context and behaviour interface. The chapter ends by suggesting some directions for future research. There are eight main sections in the chapter: intercultural relations and conceptions of intercultural competence; intercultural competence as behaviour: the contribution of interactional discourse; relational management as an interaction and evaluative process; the importance of context; exploring the interface of culture, context and behaviour; culture and social groups; intercultural relations and intercultural training; future research directions.