Aakhus, Mark (2005). The Act and Activity of Proposing in Deliberation. In Ridley, P. (ed.), Engaging Argument: Selected Papers from the 2005 National Communication Association/American Forensic Association Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 402–408). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar

Aarnio, Aulis (1977). On Legal Reasoning. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar

Aarnio, Aulis (1987). The Rational as Reasonable. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Abaelardus, Petrus (1970). Dialectica. De Rijk, L. M. (ed.). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar

Aberdein, Andrew (2000). Persuasive Definition. In Tindale, C. W., Hansen, H. V., & Sveda, E. (eds.), Argumentation at the Century’s Turn, OSSA (Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation) Proceedings, Windsor 2000.

Anscombe, G. E. M. (1998). Practical Inference. In Hursthouse, R., Lawrence, G., & Quinn, W. (eds.), Virtues and Reasons: Philippa Foot and Moral Theory: Essays in Honour of Philippa Foot (pp. 1–34), Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Ducrot, Oswald (1978). Lois logiques et lois argumentatives. Le Français Moderne 46(4): 347–357.Google Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Ducrot, Oswald (1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Ducrot, Oswald (1986). Argumentativité et informativité. In Meyer, M. (ed.), De la métaphysique à la rhétorique (pp. 79.94), Bruxelles: Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar

Antley, Kenneth (1974). McCawley’s Theory of Selectional Restriction. Foundations of Language 11(2): 257–272.Google Scholar

Aqvist, Lennart (1974). A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Actions and Causality. In Stenlund, S. (ed.), Logical Theory and Semantics (pp. 73–91), Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Aristotle, (1969). Topica. In Ross, W. D. (ed.), The Works of Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle, (2007). On Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by Kennedy, G.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle, (1995). Nicomachean Ethics. In Barnes, J. (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. II, Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.Google Scholar

Artsybashev, Michael (1915). Sanine. New York: Huebsch.Google Scholar

Asher, Nichoals & Lascarides, Alex (1998). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Presupposition. Journal of Semantics 15(3): 239–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, Nichoals & Lascarides, Alex (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Atkinson, Katie, Bench-Capon, Trevor, & McBurney, Peter (2005): Generating Intentions through Argumentation. In Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Koenig, S., Kraus, S., Singh, M., & Wooldridge, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005) (pp. 1261–1262), Utrecht, The Netherlands: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Atkinson, Katie, Bench-Capon, Trevor, & McBurney, Peter (2006). PARMENIDES: Facilitating Deliberation in Democracies. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14(4): 261–275.Google Scholar

Atlas, Jay (2004). Presupposition. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 29–52), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Austin, John (1962). How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. (ed. J. O. Urmson) Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent (1999). The Myth of Conventional Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4): 237–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Kent (2006). Speech acts and pragmatics. In Devitt, M. & Hanley, R. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language (pp. 147–167). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Baker, Michael. (2003). Computer-Mediated Argumentative Interactions for the Co-Elaboration of Scientific Notions. In Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 47–78), Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Lee, Ballard, Conrad, Robert. & Longacre, Robert (1971). The Deep and Surface Grammar of Interclausal Relations. Foundations of Language 7(1): 70–118.Google Scholar

Barth, Else & Krabbe, Erik (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barwick, Karl (1965). Zur Rekonstruktion der Rhetorik des Hermagoras von Temnos. Philologus 109(3/4): 186–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basler, Roy (ed.) (1946). Abraham Lincoln. His Speeches and Writings. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.

Bayles, Michael (1991). Definitions in Law. In Fetzer, J., Shatz, D., & Schlesinger, G. (eds.), Definitions and Definability: Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 253–267), Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Bellavita, Christopher (2008). Changing Homeland Security: What is Homeland Security? Homeland Security Affairs 4(2).

Bench-Capon, Trevor (1998). Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game. In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference (pp. 5–19), Nijmegen: Gerard Noodt Instituut.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, Trevor (2002). Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue between Parties with Different Values. Informal Logic 22(3): 231–245.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, Trevor (2003). Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bench-Capon, Trevor & Atkinson, Katie (2009). Abstract Argumentation and Values. In Rahwan, Iyad & Simari, Guillermo (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 45–64), Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Bentham, Jeremy (1952). Bentham’s Handbook of Political Fallacies. Larrabee, H. A. (ed.), Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar

Ben-Ze’ev, Aaron (2000). The Subtlety of Emotions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bierwisch, Manfred (1969). On Certain Problems of Semantic Representation. Foundations of Language 5(2): 153–184.Google Scholar

Blackstone, William (1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol. IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Blakey, Robert (1982). The RICO Civil Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg. Notre Dame Law Review 58(2): 237–349.Google Scholar

Blokker, Niels (2000). Is the Authorization Authorized? Powers and Practice of the UN Security Council to Authorize the Use of Force by ‘Coalitions of the Able and Willing.’ European Journal of International Law 11(3): 541–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bocchino, Anthony & Sonenshein, David (2006). A Practical Guide to Federal Evidence. Louisville, CO: NITA.Google Scholar

Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus (1891). Liber de Diffinitione. In Migne, J.-P. (ed.), Patrologia Latina, vol. 64, Paris.Google Scholar

Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus (1966). Porphyrii Isagoge, Translatio Boethii. In Minio-Paluello, L. (ed.). Bruges: Desclée De Brouwer.Google Scholar

Boethius’s De Topicis Differentiis. Translated by Stump, E.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Boethius’s In Ciceronis topica (1988). Translated, with notes and Introduction by Stump, Eleanore. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Braet, Antoine (1987). The Classical Doctrine of Status and the Rhetorical Theory of Argumentation. Philosophy & Rhetoric 20(2): 79–93.Google Scholar

Brewer, Scott (1996). Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy. Harvard Law Review 109(5): 923–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brewka, Gerhard (2001). Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation 11(2): 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Broda-Bahm, Kenneth (1999). Finding Protection in Definitions: The Quest for Environmental Security. Argumentation & Advocacy 35(4): 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Donald (1955). Evaluative Inference. Philosophy 30(114): 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Lester (1977). Redefining National Security. Worldwatch Paper 14. Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute.Google Scholar

Buchanan, Bruce, Carenini, Giuseppe, Mittal, Vibhu, & Moore, Johanna (1998). Designing Computer-Based Frameworks that Facilitate Doctor–Patient Collaboration. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 12(2): 169–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Burgess-Jackson, Keith (1995). Rape and Persuasive Definition. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 25(3) appeared in issue 3: 415–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burnyeat, Myles (1980). Aristotle on Learning to be Good. In Rorty, A. (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics (pp. 69–92), Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, Noel (1989). The Limits to Debate: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Calboli Montefusco, Lucia (2004). Stylistic and Argumentative Function of Rhetorical “Amplificatio”. Hermes 132(1) appeared in issue 1: 69–81.Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chesterton, Gilbert (2009). Heretics. Rockville, MD: Serenity.Google Scholar

Chi, Michelene & Roscoe, Rod (2002). The Process and Challenges of Conceptual Change. In Limon, M. & Mason, L. (eds.), Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Chisholm, Roderick (1976). Person and Object: A Metaphysical Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam (1971). Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics, an Interdisciplinary Reader in Linguistics, Philosophy and Psychology (pp. 183–216), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam (1972). Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of Transformational Grammar. In Peters, Stanley (ed.), Goals of Linguistic Theory (pp. 63–130). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1916). The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. vol. 1. The First Oration Against Verres. Translated by Yonge, C. D.. London: G. Bell and Sons.Google Scholar

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1965). Rhetorica ad Herennium. Translated by Caplan, Harry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1988). De Inventione. In The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Translated by Yonge, C. D.. London: George Bell & Sons.Google Scholar

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (2003). Cicero’s Topica. Edited and translated by Reinhardt, Tobias. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sara, Cigada (2006). Connectif et relation entre locuteurs. In Gobber, Giovanni, Gatti, Maria Cristina, & Cigada, Sara (eds.), Sýndesmoi (pp. 97–173), Milano: Vita e Pensiero.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert (1993). Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Connor-Linton, Jeff (1991). A Sociolinguistic Model of Successful Speech Act Construction. In Verschueren, Jef (ed.), Pragmatics at Issue (pp. 93–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Corblin, Francis (2003). Presuppositions and Commitment Stores. In Proceedings Diabruck, 7th Workshop on the Semantics and the Pragmatics of Dialogue. Wallerfangen, Germany.Google Scholar

Crothers, Edward (1979). Pragmatic Structure Inference. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar

Crowley, Sharon & Hawhee, Debra (1999). Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Damascenus, Johannes (1953). Dialectica. Colligan, O. (ed.), St. Bonaventure: The Franciscan Institute.Google Scholar

Damasio, Antonio (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar

Damasio, Antonio (2000). The Feeling of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness. London: Vintage.Google Scholar

Dascal, Marcelo (2001). Nihil sine ratione → Blandior ratio (‘Nothing without a reason → A softer reason’). In Poser, H. (ed.), Nihil sine ratione – Proceedings of the VII. Internationaler Leibniz-Kongress (pp. 276–280). Berlin: Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz Gesellschaft.Google Scholar

De Bessé, Bruno (1990). La définition terminologique. In Chaurand, J. & Mazière, F. (eds.), La définition, Actes du Colloque organisé par CELEX (pp. 252–261). Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar

De Sousa, Ronald (1987). The Rationality of Emotion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Doyle, Michael & Sambanis, Nicholas (2006). Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations. Princeotn, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald (1966). “Le roi de France est sage”. Implication logique et Présupposition linguistique. Etudes de linguistique appliquée 4: 39–47.Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald (1968). Le structuralisme en linguistique. In Ducrot, O., Todorov, T., et al. (eds.), Qu’est-ce que le structuralisme? (pp. 13–96). Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald (1972a). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: HermannGoogle Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald (1972b). De Saussure à la philosophie du langage. Preface to John Searle, Les actes de langage (pp. 7–34). Paris: HermannGoogle Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald (1978). Deux mais. Cahier de linguistique 8: 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dummett, Michael (1973). Frege: Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engel, Morris (1980). Analyzing Informal Fallacies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Engel, Morris (1994). Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Ephratt, Michal (2008). The functions of Silence. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (11) appeared in issue 11: 1909–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles (1982). Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis. In Jarvella, R. & Klein, W. (eds.), Speech, Place, and Action (pp. 31–59), London: Wiley.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles (2003). Double-Decker Definitions: The Role of Frames in Meaning Explanations. Sign Language Studies 3 (3): 263–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finocchiaro, Maurice (2007). Arguments, Meta-arguments, and Metadialogues: A Reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. Argumentation 2(3): 253–268.Google Scholar

Fisher, Nick (1992). Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece. Warminster, UK: Aris & Phillips.Google Scholar

Forcellini, Egidio (1831). Totius latinitatis lexicon, Vol. 2. Schneeberg: Schumann.Google Scholar

Freeman, James (2005). Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob (1897). Logic. In Hermes, H., Kambartel, F., & Kaulbach, F. (eds.), Posthumous Writings: Gottlob Frege, translated by Long, P. and White, R. (pp. 126–151). Oxford: Blackwell, 1979.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob (1948). Sense and Reference. The Philosophical Review 57(3): 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frijda, Nico (1998). The Laws of Emotion. In Jenkins, J., Oatley, K., & Stein, N. (eds.), Human Emotions: A Reader (pp. 271–287). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Frijda, Nico & Mesquita, Batja (1998). The Analysis of Emotions: Dimensions of Variation. In Mascolo, M. & Griffin, S.. (eds.), What Develops in Emotional Development? (pp. 273–295). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Frijda, Nico & Mesquita, Batja (2000). Beliefs through Emotions. In Frijda, N., Mansteade, A., & Bem, S. (eds.), Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings Influence Thoughts (pp. 45–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fusco, Federico (2008). Commencement of the Prescription Period in Case of Damage Due to Omissions. In Koziol, Helmut & Steininger, Barbara (eds.), Tort and Insurance Law Yearbook. European Tort Law. volume 2007(pp. 79–93). New York: Springer.

Gallie, Walter (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gano, Darwin Curtis & Williams, Samuel C. (2008). Teacher’s Handbook to Accompany Gano’s Commercial Law. Charleston, SC: BiblioLifeGoogle Scholar

Gildenhard, Ingo (2011). Creative Eloquence: The Construction of Reality in Cicero’s Speeches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Giuliani, Alessandro (1972). The Aristotelian Theory of the Dialectical Definition. Philosophy & Rhetoric 5(3) appeared in issue 3: 129–142.Google Scholar

Glanville, Williams (1983). Textbook of Criminal Law. London: Steven & Sons.Google Scholar

Gobber, Giovanni (2007). Some Remarks on Interrogativity and Argumentation. In van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, A., Willard, C., & Garssen, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 461–464). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar

Gordon, Thomas (1994). The Pleadings Game: An Exercise in Computational Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(4) appeared in issue 4: 239–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gordon, Thomas & Walton, Douglas (2009). Proof Burdens and Standards. In Rahwan, Iyad & Simari, Guillermo (ed.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 239–260). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Gorsky, D.P. (1981). Definition. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar

Governatori, Guido (2008). Labelled modal tableaux. In Carlos Areces and R. Goldblatt (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic, volume 7: 87–110.Google Scholar

Governatori, Guido, Maher, Michael, Billington, David, & Antoniou, Grigoris (2004). Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5): 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, Georgia (1996). Pragmatics and Natural language understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Green, Keith & Kortum, Richard (2007). Can Frege’s Farbung Help Explain the Meaning of Ethical Terms?Essays in Philosophy 8(1): Article 10. Available at: (retrieved on 16 June 2011).Google Scholar

Green-Pedersen, Niels (1984). The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages: The Commentaries on Aristotle’s and Boethius’ Topics. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar

Greenwood, Katie, Bench-Capon, Trevor, & McBurney, Peter (2003). Structuring Dialogue between the People and Their Representatives. In Traunmuller, R. (ed.), Electronic Government, Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2739 (pp. 55–62). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Grice, Paul (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Grice, Paul (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Grimaldi, William (1988). Aristotle, Rhetoric II. A Commentary. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar

Grimes, Joseph (1975). The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groarke, Leo & Tindale, Christopher (2004). Good Reasoning Matters!Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette & Fretheim, Thorstein (2004). Topic and Focus. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatic Theory (174–196). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hahn, Ulrike, & Oaksford, Mike (2006). A Normative Theory of Argument Strength. Informal Logic 26(1): 1–24.Google Scholar

Halldén, Sören (1960). True Love, True Humour and True Religion: A Semantic Study. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Hamblin, Charles (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Hamblin, Charles (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue. Theoria 37(2) appeared in issue 2: 130–155.Google Scholar

Hammond, Scott, Hardwick, Kevin, & Lubert, Howard (2007). Classics of American Political and Constitutional Thought. Volume 1: Origins through the Civil War. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar

Hare, Richard (1952). The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hare, Richard (1963). Freedom and Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hart, Herbert (1948–1949; 1951). The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 49: 171–194. Reprinted in Logic and Language, ed. Flew, A., Oxford: Blackwell, 1951, 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, Herbert (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hastings, Arthur (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar

Heath, Malcolm (1994). The Substructure of Stasis-Theory from Hermagoras to Hermogenes. The Classical Quarterly, New Series 44(1): 114–129.Google Scholar

Hickey, Leo (1993). Presupposition under Cross-Examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 6(1): 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko (1979). Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model. Studia Logica 38(4): 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hjelmslev, Louis (1961). Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Hobbs, Jerry (1979). Coherence and Coreference. Cognitive Science 3(1) appeared in issue 1: 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hobbs, Jerry (1985). On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Report No. CSLI-85–37, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles (1950). Peiping Morphophonemics. Language 26(1): 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holtgraves, Thomas (2002). Language as Social Action. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Honigsberg, Peter Jan (2007). Chasing ‘Enemy Combatants’ and Circumventing International Law: A License for Sanctioned Abuse. UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 12(1): 1–74.Google Scholar

Hopper, Robert (1981a). The Taken-for-Granted. Human Communication Research 7(3): 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Robert (1981b) How to Do Things without Words: The Taken-for-Granted as Speech-Action. Communication Quarterly 29(3): 228–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, Laurence & Ward, Gregory (2004). The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Houtlosser, Peter (2001). Points of View. In van Eemeren, F. H. (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar

Huxley, Aldous (1955) Eyeless in Gaza. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar

Huxley, Aldous (1998). Brave New World. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar

Isidore of Seville (2005). Isidore of Seville ‘s Etymologies: Complete English Translation, Volume 1. Translated by Priscilla Throop. Charlotte, VT: MedievalMS.Google Scholar

Isidorus Hispalensis (1966). Etymologiarum libri XX. Linsday, W. M. (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jørgensen, Charlotte (1998). Public Debate – An Act of Hostility?Argumentation 12(4): 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe. (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Karimi, Simin (2003). Word Order and Scrambling. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karttunen, Lauri (1973). Presuppositions of Compound Sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4(2): 169–193.Google Scholar

Katz, Jerrold (1973). On Defining “Presupposition.” Linguistic Inquiry 4(2): 256–260.Google Scholar

Katz, Jerrold & Fodor, Jerry (1963). The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language 39(2): 170–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kauffeld, Fred (1995a). The Persuasive Force of Arguments on Behalf of Proposals. In In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation: Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation. (Vol. II, pp. 79–90). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar

Kauffeld, Fred (1995b). On the Difference between Assumptions and Presumptions. In Jackson, S. (ed.), Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 509–514). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

Kauffeld, Fred (1998). Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation 12(2): 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kauffeld, Fred (2003). The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and the Burden of Proof. In van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation (pp. 136–146). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Kauffman, Charles. (1989). Names and Weapons. Communication Monographs 56(3): 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keenan, Edward (1971). Two Types Of Presupposition in Natural Language. In Filmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 45–54). New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Kelly, Gregory & Bazerman, Charles (2003). How Students Argue Scientific Claims: A Rhetorical-Semantic Analysis. Applied Linguistics 24(1): 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kempson, Ruth (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (1977). La connotation. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar

Kienpointner, Manfred (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.Google Scholar

Kiewe, Amos & Houck, Davis (1991). A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan’s Economic Rhetoric, 1951–1989. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Krabbe, Erik (2003). Metadialogues. In van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 641–644). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar

Krabbe, Erik (2007). On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage. Argumentation 21(3) appeared in issue 3: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kramer, Adam (2003). Common Sense Principles of Contract Interpretation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23(2): 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kupperman, Joel (2002). Ethical Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George (1971). On Generative Semantics. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (pp. 232–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George (1999). Cognitive Models and Prototype Theory. In Margolis, E. & Laurence, S. (eds.), Concepts (pp. 391–421). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George (2006). Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision, available at: (URL accessed on 11 October 2011).

Lakoff, Robin (1971). If’s, and’s, and but’s about conjunction. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, D. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 115–150). New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Lascarides, Alex & Asher, Nicholas (1993). Temporal Interpretation, Discourse Relations and Commonsense Entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(5): 437–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar

Leenes, Ronald (2001). Burden of Proof in Dialogue Games and Dutch Civil Procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 109–118). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Leigh, Matthew (2004). Quintilian on the Emotions (Institutio Oratoria 6 Preface and 1–2). The Journal of Roman Studies 94: 122–140.Google Scholar

Leighton, Stephen (1984). Feelings and Emotion. The Review of Metaphysics 38(2): 303–320.Google Scholar

Leighton, Stephen (1988). Modern Theories of Emotion. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2(3): 206–224.Google Scholar

Leonard, Henry (1967). Principles of Reasoning. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David (1979). Scorekeeping in a Language Game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1): 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lifton, Robert (1986) The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Lodder, Arno (1999). DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Loui, Ronald (1998). Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Non-Demonstrative Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14(1) appeared in issue 1: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Louisell, David (1977). Construing Rule 301: Instructing the Jury on Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings. Virginia Law Review 63(2): 281–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Walton, Douglas (2009a). Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions. Argumentation 23(1): 81–107.Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Walton, Douglas (2009b). Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42(2): 154–182.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, Jim (1979). Question-Begging in Non-Cumulative Systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1): 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackenzie, Jim (1981). The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse 94: 159–177.Google Scholar

Mahadevan, Swaminatha & Garmel, Gus (2005). An Introduction to Clinical Emergency Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manicas, Peter & Kruger, Arthur (1968). Essentials of Logic. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar

Charles, Marsh (2005). The Syllogism of Apologia: Rhetorical Stasis Theory and Crisis Communication. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.

Martins, Isabel, Mortimer, Eduardo, Osborne, Jonathan, Tsatsarelis, Charalampos, & Aleixandre, Jiménez, Pilar, Maria (2001). Rhetoric and Science Education. In Behrendt, H. et al. (eds.), Research in Science Education – Past, Present, and Future (pp. 189–198). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Max, Ingolf (2008). Dimensions of Discourse: Presuppositions of (German) Connectors. In Steube, A. (ed.), The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures (pp. 551–580). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mayall, James (1996). The New Interventionism 1991–1994: United Nations Experience in Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia and Somalia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mazilu, Simona (2011). Persuasive Definitions in Ethical Argumentation on Abortion. In van Eemeren, F. H. (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th ISSA Conference (pp. 1208–1220). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar

McCawley, James (1971). Interpretative semantics meets Frankenstein. Foundations of Language 7(2): 285–296.Google Scholar

Mel’cuk, Igor (1997). Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Leçon inaugurale. Paris: Collège de France.Google Scholar

Mill, James (1869). Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.Google Scholar

Molière, Jean-Baptiste (2000). Don Juan. In Wood, J. & Coward, D. (trans.), Molière. The Miser and other plays. Toronto: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Mostovaia, Anna (2009). Color Words in Literary Russian: Connotations and Gender Differences in Use. Journal of Literary Semantics 38(1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mousourakis, George (2003). The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Myers, Norman (2004). Environmental Security: What’s New and Different? Background paper for the Hague Conference on Environment, Security, and Sustainable Development, 9–12 May, 2004, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Naess, Arne (1966). Communication and Argument. London: Allen & Unwin LTD.Google Scholar

Naess, Arne (2005). Interpretation and Preciseness. In Drengson, A. (ed.), The Selected Works of Arne Naess, vol. I. Dordrecht: Springer (Original edition: Dybway 1953).Google Scholar

Nakhnikian, George (1959). An Examination of Toulmin’s Analytical Ethics. The Philosophical Quarterly 9(34): 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nute, Donald (1994). Defeasible Logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Volume 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning (pp. 353–395). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

O’Connell, Mary Ellen (2002). The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense. The American Society of International Law. Available at .

Olscamp, Paul (1970). Hare’s Failure to Define Good Reasons. Mind 79(314): 241–244.Google Scholar

Orwell, George (1946). Politics and the English Language. Horizon. April.

Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Martin Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar

Page, Herbert (1919). The Law Of Contracts. Cincinnati, OH: W. H. Anderson.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara (1992). Syntactic Categories and Semantic Type. In Rosner, M. & Johnson, R. (eds.), Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics (pp. 97–126), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim & Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1951). Act and Person in Argument. Ethics 61(4): 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perelman, Chaim & Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Hispanus, Petrus (1947). Petri Hispani Summulae Logicales (ed. I. M. Bochenski). Torino: Marietti.Google Scholar

Phillipps, Samuel (1815). A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. London: Strahan.Google Scholar

Plantin, Christian (2004). On the Inseparability of Reason and Emotion in Argumentation. In Weigand, E. (ed.), Emotion in Dialogic Interaction (pp. 269–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Polanyi, Livia (1985). A theory of discourse structure and discourse coherence, In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry (2001). Modelling Reasoning about Evidence in Legal Procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 119–128). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry (2005). Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6): 1009–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prakken, Henry (2006). Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(2): 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pugmire, David (1998). Rediscovering Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Pugmire, David (2005). Sound Sentiments. Integrity in the Emotions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pustejovsky, James (1991). The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4): 409–441.Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James (1998). The Semantics of Lexical Underspecification. Folia Linguistica 32 (3–4): 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quintilian, Maximus Fabius (1996). Institutio Oratoria. Translated by Butler, H. E.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ranney, Frances (2005). Aristotle’s Ethics and Legal Rhetoric: An Analysis of Language Beliefs and the Law. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar

Rebuschi, Georges & Tuller, Laurice (eds.) (1999). The Grammar of Focus. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Rescher, Nicholas (1977). Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Rescher, Nicholas (2006). Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo (1993). La sequenza testuale. L’analisi linguistica e letteraria 1: 43–148.Google Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo (1995). Verità e Persuasione. Il nuovo areopago 14(1): 3–14.Google Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo (1997). Lezioni di Linguistica Generale. Milano: CUSL.Google Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo (2005). Towards a Typology of Manipulative Processes. In de Saussure, Louis & Schulz, Peter (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind (pp. 61–83), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo & Cigada, Sara (2004). La comunicazione verbale. Milano: Apogeo.Google Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo & Greco, Sara (2006). Topics: The Argument Generator, Argumentum eLearning Module. Available at (accessed on 14 September 2011).

Rigotti, Eddo & Rocci, Andrea (2006). Denotation vs. Connotation. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Edition (pp. 1–9), Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Robinson, Daniel (1947). The Principles of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. New York: D. Appleton – Century.Google Scholar

Robinson, Richard (1950). Definition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Ruiter, Dick (1993). Institutional Legal Facts: Legal Powers and Their Effects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, Bertrand (1905). On Denoting. Mind 14(4): 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sager, Juan (2000). Essays on Definition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sandulescu, George (1975). Presupposition, Assertion, and Discourse Structure. In Enkvist, N. E. and Kohonen, V. (eds.), Reports on Text Linguistics: Approaches to Word Order (pp. 197–214.). Åbo: Åbo Akademi, No. 8.Google Scholar

Schaff, Philip (1894). A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd ed., Vol. 1. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.Google Scholar

Schiappa, Edward (1989). The Rhetoric of Nukespeak. Communication Monographs 56(3): 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schiappa, Edward (1993). Arguing about Definitions. Argumentation 7(4) appeared in issue 4: 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schiappa, Edward (1996). Towards a Pragmatic Approach to Definition: `Wetlands’ and the Politics of Meaning. In Light, A. & Katz, E. (eds.), Environmental Pragmatism (pp. 209–230). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Schiappa, Edward (1998). Constructing Reality Through Definitions: The Politics of Meaning. A lecture presented for the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Writing and the Composition, Literacy, and Rhetorical Studies Minor, Speakers Series 11.

Schiappa, Edward (2003). Defining Reality. Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Schwarz, David (1977). On Pragmatic Presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(2): 247–257.Google Scholar

Seager, Robin (2001). Maiestas in the Late Republic: Some Observations. In Cairns, John and Robinson, Olivia (eds.), Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law and Legal History (pp. 143–153). Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Searle, John (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, John (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, John, & Vanderveken, Daniel (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, John, & Vanderveken, Daniel (2005). Speech Acts and Illocutionary Logic. In Vanderveken, Daniel (ed.), Logic, Thought and Action (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Seuren, Peter (2000). Presupposition, Negation and Trivalence. Journal of Linguistics 36(2): 261–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seuren, Peter (2010). The Logic of Language: Language from Within (vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Simons, Greg (2006). The Use of Rhetoric and the Mass Media in Russia’s War on Terror. Demokratizatsiya 14(4): 579–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simons, Herbert, Morreale, Joanne, & Gronbeck, Bruce (2001). Persuasion in Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Sinclair, John (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sini, Francesco (1991). Bellum Nefandum. Virgilio e il problema del “diritto internazionale antico.” Sassari: Libreria Dessì Editrice.Google Scholar

Soames, Scott (1982). How Presuppositions Are Inherited: A Solution to the Projection Problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 483–545.Google Scholar

Soboleva, Anita (2007). Topical Jurisprudence: Reconciliation of Law and Rhetoric. In Wagner, A., Werner, W., & Cao, D. (eds.), Interpretation, Law and the Construction of Meaning (pp. 49–63). Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar

Solomon, Robert (2003). Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and choice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soter, Steven (2007). What is a Planet? Scientific American, 296(1): 34–41.

Stalnaker, Robert (1970). Pragmatics. Synthese 22(1–2): 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert (1974). Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Munitz, M. & Unger, P. (eds.), Semantics und Philosophy (pp. 197–214). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert (1998). On the Representation of Context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert (2002). Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 255–6: 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stati, Sorin (1990). La Transphrastique. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar

Stebbing, Susan (1933). A Modern Introduction to Logic. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

Stevenson, Charles Leslie (1937). The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms. Mind 46(181): 14–31.Google Scholar

Stevenson, Charles Leslie (1938a). Persuasive Definitions. Mind 47(187): 331–350.Google Scholar

Stevenson, Charles Leslie (1938b). Ethical Judgments and Avoidability. Mind 47 (185): 45–57.Google Scholar

Stevenson, Charles Leslie (1944). Ethics and Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Strawson, Peter (1950). On referring. Mind 59(235): 320–344.Google Scholar

Strawson, Peter (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Metheun.Google Scholar

Strawson, Peter (1971). Identifying Reference and Truth-Values. In Logico-Linguistic Papers (pp. 75–95). London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Stump, Eleonore (1989). Dialectic and Its Place in the Development of Medieval Logic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Sutton, Clive (1996). The Scientific Model as a Form of Speech. In Welford, G., Osborne, J., & Scott, P. (eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe (pp. 143–152). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Sweitzer, Brett G. (1997). Implicit Redefinitions, Evidentiary Proscriptions, and Guilty Minds: Intoxicated Wrongdoers after Montana v. Egelhoff. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146(1): 269–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szwedek, Aleksander (1980). Lexical Cohesion in Text Analysis. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 11: 95–100.Google Scholar

Tadros, Victor (2006). Rape Without Consent. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26(3): 515–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tannen, Deborah (1985). Silence: Anything but. In Tannen, D. & Saville-Troike, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Silence (pp. 93–111). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Tarello, Giovanni (1980). L’interpretazione della legge. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar

Taylor, Bryan (1998). Nuclear Weapons and Communication Studies: A Review Essay. Western Journal of Communication 62(3): 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tellegen-Couperus, Olga (2003). Quintilian and the Law: The Art of Persuasion in Law and Politics. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar

Temkin, Jennifer (2002). Rape and the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thayer, James (1898). A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar

Tiersma, Peter (1999). Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen (1950). An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ullman-Margalit, Edna (1983). On Presumption. The Journal of Philosophy 80(3): 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Dijk, Teun (1977). Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, Frans & Grootendorst, Rob (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Eemeren, Frans & Grootendorst, Rob (1987). Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1(3) appeared in issue 3: 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Eemeren, Frans & Grootendorst, Rob (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, Frans & Grootendorst, Rob (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vanderveken, Daniel (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts: Principles of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vanderveken, Daniel (2001). Illocutionary Logic and Discourse Typology. Revue internationale de philosophie 216(2) appeared in issue 2: 243–255.Google Scholar

Vanderveken, Daniel (2002). Universal Grammar and Speech Act Theory. In Vanderveken, D. & Kubo, S. (eds.), Essays in Speech Act Theory (pp. 25–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Vendler, Zeno (1964). The Grammar of Goodness. The Philosophical Review 72(4): 446–465.Google Scholar

Verheij, Bart (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2–3): 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Victorini, Caius Marius (1997). Liber de definitionibus: eine spätantike Theorie der Definition und des Definierens (mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar von A. Pronay). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Viskil, Erick (1994). Definieren – Een bijdrage tot de theorievorming over het Opstellen Van Definities. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar

Von Fintel, Kai (2008), What is Presupposition Accommodation, Again?Philosophical Perspectives 22(1): 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Von Wright, Georg (1972). On So-Called Practical Inference. Acta Sociologica 15(1): 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1980). Omissions and other negative actions. Metamedicine 1(3): 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1984). Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1993). The Speech Act of Presumption. Pragmatics & Cognition 1(1): 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1997). Appeal to Pity. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1998). The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (1999). Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue. Informal Logic 19(2): 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2000). Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2004). Abductive Reasoning. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2005a). Deceptive Arguments Containing Persuasive Language and Persuasive Definitions. Argumentation 19(2): 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2005b). Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2006). How to Make and Defend a Proposal in Deliberation Dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14(3): 177–239.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2007a). Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2007b). The Speech Act of Clarification in a Dialogue Model. Studies in Communication Sciences 7(2): 165–197.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas (2007c). The Three Bases for the Enthymeme: A Dialogical Theory. Journal of Applied Logic 6(3): 361–379.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas & Godden, David (2005). Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13(2) appeared in issue 2: 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas & Krabbe, Erik (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas & Macagno, Fabrizio (2005a). Common Knowledge and Argumentation Schemes. Studies in Communication Sciences 5(2): 1–22.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas & Macagno, Fabrizio (2005b). Common Knowledge in Legal Reasoning about Evidence. International Commentary on Evidence 3(1): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Reed, Chris, & Macagno, Fabrizio (2008). Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weaver, Richard (1953). The Ethics of Rhetoric. Chicago: Henry Regnery.Google Scholar

Weiler, Michael (1992). The Reagan Attack on Welfare. In Weiler, Michael & Barnett, Pearce W. (eds.), Reagan and Public Discourse in America (pp. 227–250). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Weiler, Michael & Barnett, Pearce (1992). Reagan and Public Discourse in America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Weinreb, Lloyd. (2005). Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Welsh, Paul (1957). On the Nature of Inference. The Philosophical Review 66(4): 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitehead, Alfred & Russell, Bertand (1927). Principia Mathematica (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wigmore, John (1940). A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law: Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of all Jurisdictions of the United States and Canada (2nd ed.). Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar

Williams, Glanville (1983). Textbook of Criminal Law. London: Stevens.Google Scholar

Wilson, Deidre (1975). Presupposition and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Windes, Russell & Hastings, Arthur (1965). Argumentation and Advocacy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Woods, John & Walton, Douglas (1978). Arresting Circles in Formal Dialogues, Journal of Philosophical Logic 7(1): 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woolf, Amy (2004). Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons. Washington, DC: CRS Report for Congress, RL32572. Retrieved from (accessed on 11 October 2011).

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

WÜest, Jakob (2001). La gerarchia degli atti linguistici nel testo. Studies in Communication Sciences 1(1): 195–211.Google Scholar

Zarefsky, David (1998). Definitions. In Klumpp, J. F. (ed.), Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques (pp. 1–11). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.Google Scholar

Zarefsky, David (2004). Presidential Rhetoric and the Power of Definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly 34(3): 607–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zarefsky, David (2006). Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric. Argumentation 20(4): 399–416.Google Scholar

Zarefsky, David, Miller-Tutzaur, Carol, & Titzuar, Frank E. (1984). Reagan’s Safety Net for the Truly Needy: The Rhetorical Uses of Definition. Communication Studies 35(2): 113–119.Google Scholar

Zeevat, Henk (1992). Presupposition and Accommodation in Update Semantics. Journal of Semantics 9(4): 379–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar