Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T18:54:08.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2010

Frans H. van Eemeren
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Rob Grootendorst
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation
The pragma-dialectical approach
, pp. 197 - 206
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, H. (1967/1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft. 3rd ed. 1975. Tübingen: Mohr
Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. (1983). L'argumentation dans la langue. Liege: Pierre Mardaga
Aristotle (1928a). Prior Analytics. W. D. Ross (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press
Aristotle (1928b). Posterior Analytics. W. D. Ross (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press
Aristotle (1928c). Sophistical Refutations. W. D. Ross (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press
Aristotle (1928d). Topics. W. D. Ross. (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press
Aristotle (1991). On Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse. G. A. Kennedy (ed.), New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Barth, E. M. (1974). The Logic of the Articles in Traditional Philosophy. Dordrecht/ Boston: Reidel
Barth, E. M. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue. A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de GruyterCrossRef
Barth, E. M. & Martens, J. L. (1977). Argumentum ad hominem: From chaos to formal dialectic. The method of dialogue tableaus as a tool in the theory of fallacy. Logique et analyse, 20, 76–96Google Scholar
Benoit, P. J. (1985). Strategies for threatening face: mitigating and aggravating bids and rejections. In: J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, & G. B. Walker (eds.), Argument and Social Practice. Proceedings of the Fourth Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, 604–618
Benoit, W. L. & Benoit, P. J. (1987). Everyday argument practices of naive social actors. In: J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/ AFA Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association (465–473)
Bentham, J. (1952). The Works of Jeremy Bentham (1838–1843). J. Browning (ed.), Edinburgh
Blair, J. A. (1986). Comments on Frans van Eemeren: “Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse.”Text, 6, 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In: E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–311
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Burleson, B. R. (1979). On the analysis and criticism of arguments: Some theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 15, 137–147Google Scholar
Cicero (1942). De oratore. E. W. Sutton & H. Rackham (eds.), London: Heinemann
Cicero (1949). De inventione. De optimo genere oratorum. Topica. M. Hubbell (ed.), London: Heinemann
Cicero (1954). Rhetorica ad Herennium. H. Caplan (ed. and transl.), London: Heinemann. [Nowadays, Cicero is no longer seen as the author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium.]
Clarke, D. D. (1977). Rules and sequences in conversation. In: P. Collett (ed.), Social Rules and Social Behaviour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Clarke, D. D. (1983). Language and Action. A Structural Model of Behaviour. Oxford: Pergamon
Cleary, J. W. & Haberman, F. W. (eds., 1964). Rhetoric and Public Address. A Bibliography 1947–1961. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
Cohen, M. R. & Nagel, E. (1964). An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Copi, I. M. (1972). Introduction to Logic (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan
Corbett, E. P. J. (1966). Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press
Crawshay-Williams, R. (1957). Methods and Criteria of Reasoning. An Inquiry into the Structure of Controversy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Crosswhite, J. (1989). Universality in rhetoric: Perelman's universal audience. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 22, 157–173Google Scholar
Dascal, M. (1977). Conversational relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-Face Interaction. Research, Methods, and Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Ede, L. S. (1989). Rhetoric versus philosophy: the role of the universal audience in Chaim Perelman's The New Rhetoric. In: R. D. Dearin (ed.), The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman. Statement and Response. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 141–151
Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken Discourse. A Model for Analysis. New York: Longman
Eemeren, F. H. (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6, 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (1987a). Argumentation studies' five estates. In: J. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, 9–24
Eemeren, F. H. van (1987b). For reason's sake: Maximal argumentative analysis of discourse. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Berlin/New York: Foris Publications, 201–216
Eemeren, F. H. van (ed., 2001). Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/Foris PublicationsCrossRef
Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1, 3, 283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2, 2, 271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1990). Analyzing argumentative discourse. In: R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation. Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 86–106
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1991a). Making the best of argumentative discourse. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 431–440
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1991b). The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In: J. Verschueren (ed.), Pragmatics at Issue. Selected Papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17–22, 1987. Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 151–170
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25, 239–245Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, Chr., Walton, D. N., Willard, Ch. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1, 479–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (2000). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. The Case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation, 14, 3, 293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Houtlosser, P. (2002a). And always the twain shall meet. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 3–11
Eemeren, F. H. van & Houtlosser, P. (2002b). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 131–59
Eemeren, F. H. van & Houtlosser, P. (2002c). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press, 13–28
Eemeren, F. H. van & Houtlosser, P. (2003). A pragmatic view of the burden of proof. In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, Ch. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemands (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic SatCrossRef
Eemeren, F. H., Meuffels, B. & Verburg, M. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology, 19, 4, 416–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehninger, D. & Brockriede, W. (1963). Decision by Debate. New York: Dodd, Mead
Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicCrossRef
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against Method. London: Verso Editions/NLB
Furbank, P. N. (1977). E. M. Forster. A Life. London: Secker & Warburg
Garssen, B. (2001). Argument schemes. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 81–99
Gilbert, M. A. (1979). How to Win an Argument. New York: McGraw-Hill
Gilbert, M. A. (1997). Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Golden, J. L. (1986). The universal audience revisited. In: J. L. Golden & J. J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs. Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Dordrecht: Reidel, 287–304CrossRef
Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Goodwin, J. (2002). Designing issues. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 81–96CrossRef
Govier, T. (1985). A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications
Govier, T. (1999). The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, VA: Vale Press
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Volume 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Grize, J.-B. (1996). Logique naturelle et communications. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France
Groarke, L. (2002). Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat & Vale Press, 137–151
Groot, A. D. (1984). The theory of science forum: subject and purport. Methodology and Science, 17, 230–259Google Scholar
Grootendorst, R. (1987). Some fallacies about fallacies. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 331–342
Haack, S. (1978). Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Habermas, J. (1971). Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. In: J. Habermas & H. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. Was Leistet die Systemforschung? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 107–141
Habermas, J. (1998). On the Pragmatics of Communication. M. Cooke (ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Hamblin, Ch. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted with a preface by J.Plecnik and J. Hoaglund. Newport News, VA: Vale Press
Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (eds., 1995). Fallacies: Classical Background and Contemporary Developments. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 299–346
Hohmann, H. (2002). Rhetoric and dialectic: some historical and legal perspectives. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 41–51CrossRef
Houtlosser, P. (1994). The speech act “advancing a standpoint.” In: F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 165–171
Houtlosser, P. (2002). Indicators of a point of view. In: F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat & Vale Press, 169–184
Iseminger, G. (1986). Relatedness logic and entailment. Journal of Non-Classical Logic, 3, 5–23Google Scholar
Jackson, S. (1992). “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 1, 260–269
Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1982). The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion: A study of disagreement regulation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 77–90Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (1987). The management of disagreement in conversation. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Dordrecht/Providence, RI: Foris Publications, 229–239
Jacobs, S. (1989). Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation, 3, 345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S. (2002). Messages, functional contexts, and categories of fallacy: Some dialectical and rhetorical considerations. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 119–130CrossRef
Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In: J. R. Cox & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 205–237
Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. (1983). Speech act structure in conversation: Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence. In: R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (eds.), Conversational Coherence. Form, Structure, and Strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 47–66
Jarvie, I. C. (1976). Toulmin and the rationality of science. In: R. S. Cohen, P. K. Feyerabend & M. W. Wartofsky (eds.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. Dordrecht: Reidel, 311–333CrossRef
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumCrossRef
Johnson, R. H. & Blair, J. A. (1993). Logical Self-Defense. 1st ed. 1983. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1968). Theory of argumentation. In: R. Klibansky (ed.), La philosophie contemporaine. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice, 177–184
Kahane, H. (1973). Logic and Philosophy (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Kauffeld, F. J. (2002). Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argumentation. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic, 97–118CrossRef
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion vom Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann/Holzboog
Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A Theory of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002). Meeting in the house of Callias: An historical perspective on rhetoric and dialectic. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 29–40CrossRef
Kraus, M. (2002). Theories and practice of the enthymeme in the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. In: A. Eriksson, Th. H. Olbricht & W. Überlacker, Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts. Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 95–111
Kreckel, M. (1981). Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse. London: Academic Press
Kruger, A. N. (1975). Argumentation and Debate: A Classified Bibliography. 2nd ed., 1st ed. 1964 as A Classified Bibliography of Argumentation and Debate. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman
Leff, M. (2002). The relation between dialectic and rhetoric in a classical and a modern perspective. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 54–64CrossRef
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Levy, P. (1981). Moore. G. E. Moore and the Cambridge Apostles. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Locke, J. (1961). Of Reason. In: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book IV, Chapter XVII, 1690. J. W. Yolton (ed.). London: Dent
Lorenzen, P. & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
Mill, J. S. (1863/1972). Utilitarianism, Liberty, Representative Government. Selections from Auguste Comte and Positivism. H. B. Acton (ed.). London: Dent
Naess, A. (1953). Interpretation and Preciseness. A Contribution to the Theory of Communication. Oslo: Skrifter utgitt ar der norske videnskaps academie
Naess, A. (1966). Communication and Argument. Elements of Applied Semantics. London: Allen & Unwin. English translation of Om meningsytring. En del elementaere logiske emner (1947), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion. Theory and Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
O'Keefe, D. J. (1997). Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 1, 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Keefe, D. J. (1998). Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 2, 61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, R. (1987). Critical thinking in the strong sense and the role of argumentation in everyday life. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications, 379–382CrossRef
Perelman, Ch. (1979). The New Rhetoric and the Humanities. Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. Dordrecht: ReidelCrossRef
Perelman, Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. English translation (1969) as The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press
Pike, K. (1967). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton
Pinto, R. C. (2001). Argument, Inference and Dialectic. Collected Papers on Informal Logic with an Introduction by Hans V. Hansen. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicCrossRef
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–102
Popper, K. R. (1971). The Open Society and Its Ennemies (5th ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Popper, K. R. (1974). Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Quintilianus (1920). Institutio oratoria. H. E. Butler (ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Ray, J. W. (1978). Perelman's universal audience. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, M. A. van (1992a). The Use of Language in Conversation. An Introduction to Research in Conversation Analysis. Amsterdam: Sic Sat
Rees, M. A. (1992b). The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining conversational phenomena: A response to some conversation analytical critics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, M. A. van (1998). The diagnostic power of the stages of critical discussion in the analysis and evaluation of problem-solving discussions. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 693–697
Rescher, N. (1975). Introduction to Logic (5th ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press
Richards, I. A. (1976). Complementarities. Uncollected Essays. John Paul Russo (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressCrossRef
Sanders, R. E. (1980). Principles of relevance: A theory of the relationship between language and communication. Communication and Cognition, 13, 77–95Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiappa, E. (2002). Evaluating argumentative discourse from a rhetorical perspective: Defining “person” and “human life” in constitutional disputes over abortion. In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 65–80CrossRef
Schlesinger, G. N. (1986). Relevance. Theoria, 52, 57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill
Scult, A. (1985). A note on the range and utility of the universal audience. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 84–87Google Scholar
Scult, A. (1989). Perelman's universal audience: One perspective. In: R. D. Dearin (ed.), The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman. Statement and Response, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 153–162
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1992). Analysing Complex Argumentation. The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: Sic Sat
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2001). Argumentation, explanation and causality: An exploration of current linguistic approaches to textual relations. In: T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (eds.), Text Representation. Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 231–146CrossRef
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Taylor, T. J. & Cameron, D. (1987). Analyzing Conversation. Rules and Unities in the Structure of Talk. Oxford: Pergamon
Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of Arguing. A Rhetorical Model of Argument. New York: SUNY
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and Acting. An Invitation to Philosophy. New York: Macmillan
Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan
Tracy, K. (1982). On getting the point: Distinguishing “issues” from ‘events’, an aspect of conversational coherence. Communication Yearbook, 5, 279–301Google Scholar
Trapp, R., Yingling, J. M. & Wanner, J. (1987). Measuring argumentative competence. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications, 253–262
Walton, D. N. (1987). Informal Fallacies. Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRef
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal Logic. A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Walton, D. N. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Walton, D. N. (1995a). Arguments from Ignorance. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press
Walton, D. N. (1995b). A pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Walton, D. N. (1996). Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Walton, D. N. (1997a). Appeal to Expert Opinion. Arguments from Authority. University Park, PA. The Pennsylvania State University Press
Walton, D. N. (1997b). Appeal to Pity. Argumentum ad Misericordiam. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
Walton, D. N. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press
Walton, D. N. (1999). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press
Walton, D. N. (2000). Scare Tactics. Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicCrossRef
Walton, D. N. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment and Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
Weddle, P. (1987). Informal logic and the deductive-inductive inference. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Dordrecht/Providence, RI: Foris Publications, 383–388
Wenzel, J. W. (1979). Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 83–94Google Scholar
Wenzel, J. W. (1980). Perspectives on argument. In: J. Rhodes & S. E. Newell (eds.), Dimensions of Argument. Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, 112–133
Wenzel, J. W. (1987). The rhetorical perspective on argument. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Dordrecht/Providence, RI: Foris Publications, 101–109
Werth, P. (1981). The concept of “relevance” in conversational analysis. In: P. Werth (ed.), Conversation and Discourse. London: Croom Helm, 129–155
Whateley, R. (1848). Elements of Logic, 9th ed. (1st ed. 1826). London: Longmans
Willard, Ch. A. (1983). Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press
Wintgens, L. J. (1993). Rhetoric, reasonableness and ethics: An essay on Perelman. Argumentation, 7, 451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisse, J. (1989). Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero. Amsterdam: Hakkert
Woods, J. & Walton, D. N. (1982). Argument. The Logic of the Fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson
Woods, J. & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies. Selected Papers, 1972–1982. Dordrecht/Providence, RI: Foris Publications

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Frans H. van Eemeren, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Rob Grootendorst, Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Book: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation
  • Online publication: 12 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Frans H. van Eemeren, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Rob Grootendorst, Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Book: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation
  • Online publication: 12 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Frans H. van Eemeren, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Rob Grootendorst, Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Book: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation
  • Online publication: 12 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389.010
Available formats
×