Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation
  • Cited by 160
  • Export citation
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Buy the print book

Book description

In this book two of the leading figures in argumentation theory present a view of argumentation as a means of resolving differences of opinion by testing the acceptability of the disputed positions. Their model of a 'critical discussion' serves as a theoretical tool for analysing, evaluating and producing argumentative discourse. They develop a method for the reconstruction of argumentative discourse that takes into account all aspects that are relevant to a critical assessment. They also propose a practical code of behaviour for discussants who want to resolve their differences in a reasonable way. This is a major contribution to the study of argumentation and will be of particular value to professionals and graduate students in speech communication, informal logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, linguistics, and philosophy.

Reviews

‘This is the most important argumentation theory in the world today. It is the only theory that incorporates a developed underlying philosophical perspective with a complete elaboration of a theory and a full account of its practical applications. It is the only theory that integrates insights from the complete range of fields in which argumentation is studied (among others: linguistics, philosophy of language, logic, communications, rhetoric) … It has had simply a huge influence on argumentation studies around the world.’

J. Anthony Blair Source: University of Windsor

‘… a major event in argumentation theory scholarship.’

Michael C. Leff Source: Northwestern University

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
×

Contents

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 Gruyter
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, 76–96
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, 17–24
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, 137–147
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, 157–173
Dascal, M. (1977). Conversational relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 309–328
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, 1–16
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 Publications
Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1, 3, 283–301
Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2, 2, 271–291
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, 239–245
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, 479–497
Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (2000). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. The Case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation, 14, 3, 293–305
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 Sat
Eemeren, F. H., Meuffels, B. & Verburg, M. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology, 19, 4, 416–435
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 Academic
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, 287–304
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, 81–96
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, 230–259
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, 41–51
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, 5–23
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, 77–90
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, 345–365
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, 119–130
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, 311–333
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
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, 97–118
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, 29–40
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, 54–64
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, 1–13
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, 61–75
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, 379–382
Perelman, Ch. (1979). The New Rhetoric and the Humanities. Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. Dordrecht: Reidel
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 Academic
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, 361–375
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, 31–47
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 Press
Sanders, R. E. (1980). Principles of relevance: A theory of the relationship between language and communication. Communication and Cognition, 13, 77–95
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382
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, 65–80
Schlesinger, G. N. (1986). Relevance. Theoria, 52, 57–67
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, 84–87
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 Press
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
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, 231–146
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, 279–301
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 Benjamins
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 Academic
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, 83–94
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, 451–460
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

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.