Fabrizio Macagno (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) & Douglas Walton (University of Windsor) have posted Arguments of Statutory Interpretation and Argumentation Schemes (International Journal of Legal Discourse 2017; 2(1): 47–83) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In this paper, it is shown how certain defeasible argumentation schemes can be used to represent the logical structure of the most common types of argument used for statutory interpretation both in civil and common law. The method is based on an argumentation structure in which the conclusion, namely, the meaning attributed to a legal source, is modeled as a claim that needs that is be supported by pro and con defeasible arguments. The defeasible nature of each scheme is shown by means of critical questions, which identify the default conditions for the accepting interpretative arguments and provide a method for evaluating a given argument as weak or strong.