Safety case argumentation: A sociolinguistic perspective

Safety cases are discussed widely in the literature, and have seen adoption within industry. Whilst steps have been made to increase their effectiveness, these have typically focused on the content of safety case arguments in isolation. However, such an approach overlooks a key question: who is making the argument for safety, and, more importantly, who are they arguing to? From a sociolinguistic perspective, argumentation is an element of social communication involving cooperation and persuasion between parties to gain mutual understanding. By understanding how people argue, it may be possible to suggest new and practical insights for improving safety cases, by understanding the people who create and interact with them. Therefore, this paper applies a sociolinguistic perspective to safety cases to understand how argumentation is used. In doing so, two insights are learnt: the persuasiveness of the language used within safety case arguments is context-dependent, and safety cases are not just a product but a process by which discussions and arguments around safety are conducted. Implications for viewing safety cases in this way are explored, as well as future research directions.