Suchergebnisse

This collection of papers is the sixth volume in the Comparative Austronesian series. The papers that comprise this volume examine the concept of precedence as a form of local discourse and as a mechanism for ordering status, at different levels, within specific Austronesian-speaking societies. This is the first volume of its kind to focus entirely on precedence and to provide an explication of its social uses and the way in which it is contested. Each paper is ethnographically-focused and offers its own distinctive approach to the examination of precedence. The papers, however, relate closely to one another and are thus able to proffer a variety of comparative reflections.

The article is devoted to the phenomenon of precedence (Yu. N. Karaulov) in modern Internet communication that implements multiple logic (self-presentation, connectivity, virality, aggressive competitiveness) in the conditions of intensive development of the main metaprocesses of modernity (globalization – individualization, commercialization - mediatization, according to F. Krotz ). The authors consider the definition of «precedent text» in the context of the concept of intertextualization, identifying features of the representation of precedent in the aspect of multimedialityr (as the example of posts using text and image in the blogosphere and SMM). Thus, the intersection of media aesthetics and communication strategies of various types is investigated. The authors come to the conclusion about the reference functions of media aesthetic elements, marking the key meanings of statements.

'[A] relative absence of skills in case analysis' is said to be 'the Achilles heel of civil-law methods'. This article takes issue with this view and shows that the continental European tradition has its own ways of dealing with cases. These techniques can appear different from the common law 'case law method', but are no less rational and intellectually sophisticated. The reason for the rather conceited attitude of some comparatists lies in the dominance of the common law paradigm of precedent and the accompanying 'case law method'. If we want to understand how courts and lawyers in different jurisdictions use previous judicial decisions in their argument, we need to move beyond precedent to a wider notion, which would embrace practices and theories existing in legal systems outside the Common law tradition. This article presents the concept of 'reasoning with previous decisions' as such an alternative and develops its basic models. The article firstly points out several shortcomings of limiting the inquiry into reasoning with previous decisions by the common law paradigm. On the basis of numerous examples provided in section (1), I will present two basic models of reasoning with previous decisions: case-bound and legislative. The following section seeks to explain why the common law paradigm has for so long dominated most debates on reasoning with previous decisions. Finally, a normative defense of the legislative model, based on the experience of the continental European tradition will be offered.