Abstract

This paper aims to identify and analyse the rhetorical moves and steps present in two Chilean court rulings. It also seeks to associate these units with the legal reasoning operations that judges had to perform to resolve the case in question. This is an exploratory study that uses two methodological approaches. Firstly, it applies categories from the theory of law and procedural law to the factual, reasoning, and operative parts of the rulings. Secondly, it systematises the rhetorical-discoursive units on the basis of the principles of genre theory. Its findings configure the functional rhetorical organisation of each ruling, consisting of three macromoves that coincide with the factual, reasoning, and operative parts thereof. The description of each macromove allows for the identification of rhetorical moves in both the first instance ruling and the appeal ruling. There would therefore appear to be a need for discussion around the approach to clear legal reasoning. The conclusions highlight the complex relationship between the writing of the ruling and the judicial decision in the judges' discursive practices. Lastly, the implications regarding language and the law are discussed.