Abstract
This chapter discusses developments which have taken place, more or less independently, outside the research traditions treated in the earlier chapters. First, attention is paid to research in some disciplines and research programs that connect with argumentation theory and may even have some overlap with it. In Sect. 12.2 critical discourse analysis is discussed, in Sect. 12.3 historical controversy analysis, in Sect. 12.4 persuasion research and related quantitative research projects, and in Sect. 12.5 studies stemming from relevance theory which promote an argumentative turn in cognitive psychology.
The next chapters concentrate on developments in argumentation research that have taken place in non-Anglophone parts of the world, in which research results are often published in other languages than English. Concentrating on contributions which have not yet been discussed in other chapters, in Sect. 12.6 an overview of argumentation research in the Nordic countries is given, in Sect. 12.7 of argumentation studies in German-speaking areas, and in Sect. 12.8 of argumentation studies in Dutch-speaking areas. The study of argumentation in French-speaking areas is discussed in Sect. 12.9, and the study of argumentation in Italian-speaking areas in Sect. 12.10.
The next areas focused on are Eastern Europe, in Sect. 12.11, and Russia and other parts of the former USSR, in Sect. 12.12. Section 12.13 is devoted to the state of the art in argumentation theory in Spanish-speaking areas and Sect. 12.14 to the state of the art in Portuguese-speaking areas. Next, in Sect. 12.15 argumentation research in Israel is discussed, and in Sect. 12.16 argumentation research in the Arab world. The chapter concludes with an overview of the study of argumentation in Japan in Sect. 12.17 and an overview of the study of argumentation in China in Sect. 12.18.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
A critical evaluation of critical discourse analysis is given by Widdowson (1998). In his view, there is no coherent theory behind the claimed relationships between linguistic phenomena and ideology, the assumptions concerning ideological reproduction are based on a naïve and untenable version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the ideological interpretation of (selective) linguistic phenomena that is provided has no basis since it cannot be known what the neutral representation of a state of affairs or the author’s real intention is.
- 2.
Ihnen and Richardson point at a “subtle” difference in the relation between analysis and evaluation or critique: in pragma-dialectics analysis and evaluation are worked out independently, whereas in critical discourse analysis, the results of analysis and critique are often presented simultaneously (2011, p. 237).
- 3.
According to Ihnen and Richardson, by providing a theoretical and systematic grounding to interpretive claims, pragma-dialectics can prevent charges against critical discourse analysis of interpretive bias (2011, p. 238).
- 4.
Another difference is that in critical discourse analysis, the notion of argument scheme (often referred to as topos) usually has a more specific scope than the highly general argument schemes in argumentation theories such as pragma-dialectics.
- 5.
In pragma-dialectics, reasonableness and acceptability judgments pertain exclusively to the role that discursive elements play in resolving a difference of opinion on the merits, whereas in critical discourse analysis, they ultimately pertain to their role in the (re-)creation of relations of inequality and disempowerment.
- 6.
This ideological starting point, essentially based in critical theory (Habermas), makes some authors fear that in the end the combination of the discourse-historical approach to critical discourse analysis with pragma-dialectical critical rationalism will lead to an incommensurable “epistemological conflict” (Forchtner and Tominc 2012).
- 7.
- 8.
For the use of historical models in the analysis of controversies, see Dascal (2007).
- 9.
The conception of controversy developed by Dascal is to a large extent in line with the view of Crawshay-Williams (1957), discussed in Sect. 3.7, that controversy arises when there is disagreement between the defender of a statement and an attacker of this statement concerning the criteria according to which the statement is to be tested.
- 10.
Marras and Euli (2008) discuss the role of refutation and dissuasion in managing conflicts over political and social issues and opt for a replacement of the traditional dissuasion model by a nonviolent model. Their model allows for a taxonomy of six conflict “scenarios,” which resemble different articulations of deliberative communicative activity types from the political domain.
- 11.
Ferreira (2008) aims to develop a model of scientific dialogical activity that incorporates the concept of controversy and does justice to the language aspects. In his view, the activities of scientists have always been “immersed in controversies” (p. 125). The variety in their cognitive aims and background assumptions “brings what should be a ‘rational discussion’ down to (or up to!) a controversy” (p. 126).
- 12.
Zemplén, who would like to go even deeper into the rhetorical dimension, comes close to a fully fledged analysis of strategic maneuvering in the pragma-dialectical sense. By revealing the strategic maneuvering that takes place in the Newton–Lucas debate, he shows that such an analysis “can yield novel insights into and better understanding of the historical controversy” (p. 259).
- 13.
This research can be seen as an altered replication of research conducted earlier by Baesler and Burgoon (1994).
- 14.
- 15.
See Šorm, Timmers, and Schellens (2007) for a similar study.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
See our explanation of Aristotle’s dialectic in Sect. 2.3.
- 19.
- 20.
Finnish scholars took not so much part in this development because, unlike the various Scandinavian languages, the Finnish language is not understandable to Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians.
- 21.
- 22.
For reasonable nonagreement, see also Pedersen (2011).
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
An earlier study in Swedish dealing specifically with the analysis of legal argumentation is Evers (1970).
- 28.
Later Anders Sigrell became professor of rhetoric in Lund and Mats Rosengren at Södertörn.
- 29.
Another publication about visual rhetoric is Engdahl, Gelang, and O’Brien (2011).
- 30.
Sigrell (1995) concentrates his research on implicitness in argumentative discourse.
- 31.
A Norwegian study of legal argumentation from a rhetorical perspective is Graver (2010).
- 32.
A noteworthy Norwegian study of argumentation strategies in science that is part of the research of “sakprosa” is Breivega (2003).
- 33.
- 34.
See also Kjeldsen (1999a).
- 35.
- 36.
See also Skouen (2009).
- 37.
- 38.
See also Paavola (2006) on abductive argumentation.
- 39.
- 40.
From Jyvaskyla, Pajunen (2011) contributed to the study of epistemic concepts, such as “acceptance,” in argumentation theory.
- 41.
For a Finnish study on juridical argumentation, see also Sajama (2012), who prepares a textbook on legal argumentation.
- 42.
A case study of a historical political debate is reported in Rudanko (2009).
- 43.
Another Finnish theologian that deserves to be mentioned is Lauri Thurén, currently professor at the University of Joensuu, who published in 1995 the first fully fledged application of Toulmin’s model to a book of the Bible (Thurén 1995). Another Nordic application of Toulmin’s model in theology is Hietanen (2002).
- 44.
- 45.
At the University of Tampere, within social sciences, Kari Palonen has specialized in parliamentary debate and, within speech communication, Pekka Isotalus in political debate in the media (see Wilkins and Isotalus 2009).
- 46.
Occasionally, Prologi, the journal published by the Finnish National Association for Speech Communication (Prologos), includes articles relating to argumentation.
- 47.
Öhlschläger (1979) discusses “to argue,” Strecker (1976) “to prove,” and Klein (1987) a group of speech acts including “to confirm,” “to explain,” “to infer,” and “to justify.” Apeltauer (1978) provides a survey of sequences of speech acts, moves, and strategies in debate and discussions (see also Zillig 1982).
- 48.
- 49.
There are only few studies dealing with the overall structure of argumentative texts. In these studies, the structure of the text is made visible with the help of complex diagrams which show the interrelation of the arguments. See Deimer (1975), Grewendorf (1975, 1980), Frixen (1987), and Kopperschmidt (1989a).
- 50.
The distinction between “schlussregeletablierende” and “schlussregelbenützende” argument schemes corresponds with the Toulminian distinction between “warrant-using” and “warrant-establishing” arguments (see Chap. 4 of this volume). There is also a correspondence between this distinction and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s distinction between argumentation based on the structure of reality and argumentation establishing the structure of reality (see Chap. 5 of this volume).
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
For a review of Wohlrapp’s Der Begriff des Arguments, see Hoppmann (2012).
- 55.
Lumer (2011) aims at developing general criteria of argumentative validity and adequacy for probabilistic arguments on the basis of, and from the viewpoint of, an epistemological approach to argumentation. These general criteria should provide the theoretical basis for, and a generalization of, the epistemological criteria for several special types of probabilistic arguments. The most obvious theoretical starting point of this epistemological approach to argumentation is Bayesian epistemology. However, since Bayesian epistemology in its present form is found to be defective in several respects (unresolved problem of priors, unfeasibly excessive coherence and conditionalization requirements, few exact degrees of belief, poor practical justification of Bayesianism, etc.), practical solutions need to be developed which are apt for argumentative use.
- 56.
Apel (1988) regards the argumentative situation as the “transcendental-pragmatic condition” of all rational speech activity.
- 57.
- 58.
Kopperschmidt also published a substantial number of articles on the history of rhetoric and the analysis and evaluation of political speeches (1975, 1976b, 1977, 1989b, 1990). He edited books on rhetoric as a theory of the production of texts and the influences of rhetoric in other disciplines (1990, 1991) and edited a volume on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s new rhetoric (Kopperschmidt 2006).
- 59.
Together with Jens, Üding edited Rhetorik, ein internationals Jahrbuch [International rhetorical yearbook]”). Jens made a series of contributions to the study of political rhetoric and the history of rhetoric from antiquity to the twentieth century. For the history of rhetoric in Germany from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, see Schanze (1974).
- 60.
- 61.
The researchers involved in this type of research include Burgers, van Enschot, Hoeken, Hornikx, Hustinx, de Jong, van Mulken, and Šorm.
- 62.
Braet (2007, p. 302) emphasizes that pragma-dialectics is the most important modern source of inspiration for his approach.
- 63.
As an exception to the predominantly descriptive approaches to argumentation in the French-speaking areas, Philippe Breton, an important French argumentation scholar and communication theorist, proposed a normative approach (Breton 1996). In 1996, a French translation was published of van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s (1992a), which explains their normative views concerning argumentative discourse and the fallacies. French translations have been published of van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s (1992a) and Woods and Walton’s normative approaches (1996 and 1992, respectively).
- 64.
Raccah is a member of the Laboratoire Ligérien de Linguistique at the University of Orleans.
- 65.
Eabrasu is assistant professor of Economy and Law, group ESC-Troyes.
- 66.
Chateauraynaud is director of studies at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris and founder of the GSPR (group of pragmatic and reflexive sociology).
- 67.
- 68.
During the later part of his career, Reboul was professor of philosophy at the University of Strasbourg. He died in 1992.
- 69.
Dichy is professor of Arab linguistics. Traverso is a specialist in conversational analysis, pragmatics, and intercultural communication. She is director of research at the CNRS, Lyon 2 University. Some of her work is in the field of argumentation (Doury and Traverso 2000; Doury et al. 2000).
- 70.
Angenot also holds a chair of rhetoric at the Free University of Brussels.
- 71.
On the occasion of Perelman’s 100th birthday in 2012, Meyer co-edited a volume on Perelman’s work together with Benoît Frydman (Frydman and Meyer 2012).
- 72.
Among the members of Groupe μ are Francis Édeline, Jean-Marie Klinkenberg, Jacques Dubois, Francis Pire, Hadelin Trinon, and Philippe Minguet.
- 73.
The opposition to Perelman’s rhetoric was inspired by Roland Barthes’s (1970) view that rhetoric is an outdated discipline and cannot be considered as a serious object of study by theorists of language.
- 74.
The semantic–pragmatic approach to argumentation of the Luganese scholars with an Italian background is discussed in Sect. 9.5 of this volume.
- 75.
The Italian translation of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958) in 1966 was introduced by the philosopher Bobbio. Its publication led to philosophical, sociological, and semantic reflection on argumentation. In the words of Eco (1987): “I remember the impact that […] Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s book had upon us: the field of argumentation, including that bound to philosophy, is that of the plausible and the probable” (p. 14).
- 76.
For the most part of his career, Stati was a professor of linguistics at the University of Bologna.
- 77.
- 78.
In Cantu and Testa (2011), the relationship between developments in argumentation theory and artificial intelligence is discussed.
- 79.
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
PERSEUS, founded in 2006, stands for PERsuasiveness (Studies on the Effective Use of argumentS); ZeBraS, founded in 2012, is a research group on applied formal rhetoric.
- 85.
- 86.
Doctoral dissertations were defended at the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw by Katarzyna Budzynska in 2002 on notions of argumentation and proof viewed from a pragmatic perspective, at the University of Wrocław by Tomasz Zarębski in 2003 on the reconstruction and analysis of the conception of rationality in the philosophy of Toulmin, at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin by Marcin Koszowy in 2008 on contemporary conceptions of a logical fallacy, at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań by Kamila Dębowska in 2008 on extending the pragma-dialectal model of argumentation, and at the Warsaw University of Technology by Paweł Łoziński in 2012 on context-dependent reasoning in argumentative logics.
- 87.
Other international conferences held in Poland include a conference in 2005 by the Polish Rhetorical Society devoted to rhetoric and argumentation, a conference in 2009 on argumentation and rational change of beliefs at the University of Silesia in Katowice, Ustroń, and the conference Pragmatics-2012 on interdisciplinary approaches to pragmatics, rhetoric and argumentation at the University of Łódź.
- 88.
In Dunin-Kęplicz et al.’s (2012) approach, the choice of a rule-based, DATALOG-like query language 4QL as a four-valued implementation framework ensures that, unlike in standard two-valued approaches, tractability of the model is maintained.
- 89.
For the standard language for argument representation AIF, see Chesnevar, McGinnis, Modgil, Rahwan, Reed, Simari, South, Vreeswijk, and Willmot (2006).
- 90.
- 91.
The graduate school for linguistics of the University of Debrecen publishes an online journal, Argumentum. See Kertész and Rákosi (2009) for a research publication on argumentation stemming from this university.
- 92.
The University of Pécs has organized several international conferences on various aspects of argumentation. A doctoral dissertation on discourse coherence and arguments in health-related interviews, in which argumentation theory is applied to the clinical interview, was defended in 2007 by Monika Gyuró.
- 93.
- 94.
Like in Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe, in Hungary semiotics (including formal and cognitive linguistics) was one of the dominant research paradigms between the mid-1970s and the 1990s. In particular narratology, discourse analysis, and informal logic were dominant, which is clearly manifested in the work of the Pécs School.
- 95.
A specific feature of the Pécs group is an ongoing project of comparative analysis of languages, inspired by Raccah.
- 96.
See Zadar et al. (2006).
- 97.
Žagar considers himself a follower of Ducrot and mainly works within Ducrot’s “standard theory.” However, he often problematizes some of its concepts and definitions and generalizes others, trying to apply them to different fields.
- 98.
Other Slovenian argumentation researchers are Bregant and Vezjak (2007), who have a descriptive interest in fallacies.
- 99.
In the department of rhetoric scores of doctoral dissertations on argumentation theory have been defended.
- 100.
Since 1995, the Bulgarian Association of Rhetoric is another center in developing scientific and educational projects.
- 101.
The interest in argumentation theory in Bulgaria was further stimulated by the international conference on argumentation theory in Amsterdam in 1986 which led to the establishment of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA).
- 102.
Visits to the department of rhetoric in Sofia of the intellectual leaders of three of these schools (Perelman, van Eemeren, and Brutian) have reinforced the impact of their ideas on Bulgarian scholarship.
- 103.
This replacement, stimulated by Perelman’s studies (in particular, Perelman 1968, 1969, 1974, 1979b), also reflected a remarkable change in attitude towards rhetorical practice. Totalitarian management of rhetorical practice had relied on special volumes of instructions for leaders, including party and komsomol secretaries, and the ideology departments of the party committees; a series of monthly magazines served the lower-level secretaries and political instructors.
- 104.
- 105.
The first two volumes of the Library of Rhetoric are translations of A Systematic Theory of Argumentation (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004), translated by M. Pencheva (published in 2006), and Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992a), translated by Donka Alexandrova (published in 2009). A translation of Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse (van Eemeren 2010) is to be published.
- 106.
Argumentation theory is taught in faculties of philosophy, letters, and communication in Bucharest, Iaşi, Cluj, Craiova, Galaţi, and Ploieşti. There are two Romanian journals devoted to argumentation theory: Argumentum (published by Al. I. Cuza University of Iaşi since 2002) and Communication and Argumentation in the Public Sphere (published by Dunărea de Jos University of Galaţi since 2007).
- 107.
Another important step in the study of argumentation in Romania is the publication in 2012 of a Romanian translation by A. Stoica of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958).
- 108.
See also Constantinescu, Stoica, and Uţă Bărbulescu (2012).
- 109.
Zafiu (2010) contains an analysis of religious texts represented by orthodox sermons, which belong to “the most stable types of texts throughout which the tradition of rhetoric has preserved itself and continued in European culture” (p. 27). In orthodox sermons, reasoning has a different role than, for instance, in scientific texts, and in argumentation it is in a specific way complemented by ethos and an “accepted presence of pathos” (p. 27).
- 110.
This research group is part of the Centre of Discourse Theory and Practice of the Department of French in the Faculty of Letters. The Centre published a Romanian translation of van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992a) by A. Gâţă in collaboration with C. Andone of the University of Amsterdam (2010).
- 111.
Evidential markers, or “evidentials,” are words or phrases indicating the source of information the statement relies on (visual or auditory perception, inference, reported speech, etc.).
- 112.
In 2011, for example, a big interdisciplinary Summer University was organized in Ohrid: “Argumentation: Droit, politique, sciences” [Argumentation: Law, politics, science].
- 113.
In Macedonia an Albanian translation was published of van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Snoeck Henkemans (2002a) (van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Snoeck Henkemans, 2006a).
- 114.
See also Dimiškovska Trajanoska (2006).
- 115.
- 116.
See Miovska-Spaseva and Ačkovska-Leškovska (2010) for an effort to develop innovative techniques of critical thinking that can be applied at all educational levels.
- 117.
- 118.
As his Russian colleague Alekseev (1991) states, “The development of the investigation of argumentation in the Soviet Union is connected first of all with Brutian’s name” (p. 4).
- 119.
The proceedings of the first symposium, Problems of philosophical argumentation, were published by G. Brutian and Narsky (1986). They see “argumentology” as a special branch of philosophical study.
- 120.
In 2004 an Armenian translation was published of van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Snoeck Henkemans (2002a).
- 121.
For his views on the language of argumentation, see Brutian and Markarian (1991).
- 122.
Other members of the Yerevan School are Edvard Atayan, Igor Zaslavsky, Hrachik Shakarian, Hamlet Gevorkian, Alexander Manassian, Edvard B. Markarian, Edvard S. Markarian, Henri Grigorian, Suren Hovhannisian, Hovhannes Hovhannisian, Mkrtich Avagian, Arthur Avanesian, and Anna Amirkhanian.
- 123.
Between 1999 and 2002 the department of logic of St. Petersburg State University and the department of speech communication, argumentation theory and rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam published a joint online journal, Argumentation. Interpretation. Rhetoric, co-edited by Migunov and van Eemeren.
- 124.
- 125.
- 126.
- 127.
See, for instance, Smirnova (2007) on reported speech in newspaper discourse.
- 128.
See Sentenberg and Karasic (1993).
- 129.
See also Golubev (1999).
- 130.
At Udmurt State University, Kiseliova defended in 2006 a doctoral dissertation on variability of verbal reactions in argumentative discourse (Kiseliova 2006).
- 131.
See also Vassiliev (1999).
- 132.
The doctoral dissertations supervised by Vasiliev deal with strategies and tactics in argumentative discourse (Oshchepkova 2004), mocking (Volkova 2005), refutation (Puckova 2006), presidential address (Guseva 2006), advertisement (Kalashnikova 2007), deliberation (Vasilyanova 2007), informative speech (Kasyanova 2008), conflict at school (Ruchkina 2009), appeals and complaints (Cherkasskaya 2009), political public address (Sukhareva 2010), allegorical phrasal units (Saltykova 2011), cognitive aspects (Besedina 2011), and bureaucratic runaround (Puchkova 2011).
- 133.
At the Eurasian National University in Kazakhstan, too, a start has been made with argumentation research from a linguistic perspective. In collaboration with argumentation theorists of the University of Lugano, Serikkul Satenova supervised the doctoral dissertations of Lyazzat Kimanova and Diana Akizhanova.
- 134.
As far as we are aware, no argumentation research is going on in Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru, and only a very limited amount of work is done in Venezuela and Ecuador. In Venezuela, at the Experimental Pedagogical University Libertador in Caracas, the linguist Thays Adrian (2011) relates argumentation theory to political discourse. Like a great many of their Latin American colleagues, Natalie Álvarez and Iraida Sánchez (2001) focus on measuring argumentative skills of secondary school students.
- 135.
The rhetoricians who gave shape to this tradition are Antonio de Nebrija, Miguel de Salinas, Alfonso García Matamoros, Cipriano Suárez, Martín de Segura, and Juan de Guzmán. The Valencian rhetorician Juan Luis Vives (1492–1540) also deserves to be mentioned. Baltasar Gracián (1601–1658) provided a rhetorical synthesis of the renaissance spirit (Kennedy 1999).
- 136.
A Spanish translation of Feteris (1999), Fundamentals of legal argumentation, was published in 2007.
- 137.
Among the participants in the meetings Vega set up to strengthen argumentation theory in the Hispanic academic community were Spanish scholars such as Jose Miguel Saguillo, Huberto Marraud, Cristina Corredor, Jesús Alcolea, José Francisco Álvarez, and Roberto Feltrero but also Latin American scholars such as Gabriela Guevara, Roberto Marafioti, Carlos Pereda, and Cristián Santibáñez.
- 138.
- 139.
- 140.
See also Navarro (2011).
- 141.
In addition, Vega promoted the publication of a Spanish translation (2013b) of van Eemeren’s (2010) pragma-dialectical monograph Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse.
- 142.
For her justification of the normative nature of argumentation see Bermejo-Luque (2007).
- 143.
- 144.
In addition, in the 1990s, Portolés and Tordesillas were in Barcelona, members of the Groupe μ, which also published on argumentation.
- 145.
Sevilla translated Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s (1958) monograph on the new rhetoric into Spanish (1989). Other names that deserve to be mentioned here are Albadalejo, García Barrientos, García Berríos, and López Eire.
- 146.
Atienza and Espejo translated Alexy’s (1978) Theorie der juristischen Argumentation [A theory of legal argumentation] into Spanish (1989).
- 147.
- 148.
Earlier, as editor of Signo and Seña, Narvaja already included some papers on argumentation in her journal.
- 149.
Prominent foreign argumentation theorists are even regularly invited to present their views in guest lectures.
- 150.
In addition, Marafioti translated van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Snoeck Henkemans’s (2002a) textbook Argumentation into Spanish (2006c) and enabled Ana María Vicuña and Celso López to publish their Spanish translation of van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s (2004) monograph A Systematic Theory of Argumentation (2011).
- 151.
Other argumentation scholars at the University of Buenos Aires are Alicia Carrizo, Alfredo Lescano, Alejandra Reale, and Alejandra Vitale.
- 152.
Other active Argentinian argumentation scholars are Gustavo Arroyo and Teresita Matienzo of the National University of General Sarmiento; Gustavo Bodanza of the National University del Sur; Bahía Blanca, Mónica Musci, and Andrea Pac of the University of Patagonia Austral; Nidia Piñeiro and Nilda Corral of the National University del Nordeste; and Carlos Oller of the National University La Plata.
- 153.
Among her doctoral students were Esther López and María Belén Romano.
- 154.
Under the supervision of CEAR, a Spanish translation of a compilation of papers by Henry Prakken was prepared (Prakken 2013) and also of Walton and Krabbe’s (1995) monograph Commitment in Dialogue. Commitment in Dialogue (2013), and van Eemeren and Grootendorst's (1984) monograph Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions (2013)
- 155.
- 156.
- 157.
- 158.
See for a clear token of the connection between European and Latin American scholarship Ducrot (1986).
- 159.
- 160.
Among them are Natalia Luna and Federico Marulanda. Luna and Leal have also played an important role in stimulating argumentation theory in Mexico by organizing conferences and inviting international argumentation scholars for guest lectures.
- 161.
- 162.
- 163.
Grácio (with F. Trindade) also translated Perelman’s book L’empire rhétorique [The realm of rhetoric] into Portuguese (Perelman 1977).
- 164.
- 165.
The journal of the Centre for Linguistics, Estudos linguísticos [Linguistics studies], addresses also occasionally the topic of argumentation.
- 166.
For another of his recent publications, see Grácio (2010).
- 167.
A doctoral dissertation about the relationship between philosophy, rhetoric, and education was defended at the Faculty of Letters of the University of Coimbra by Vicente (2009). Polónio prepares a doctoral dissertation devoted to Aristotle’s theory of fallacies and its impact on contemporary argumentation theory.
- 168.
ArgLab organized several international colloquiums involving international argumentation scholars, such as Aakhus, van Eemeren, Garssen, Hansen, and Walton: “Argumentation in political deliberation” (2011, see Lewiński and Mohammed 2013); “Meaning and arguments in context” (2012); and “Legal argumentation” (2012).
- 169.
- 170.
In 2010, in Ouro Preto, the first Brazilian conference on rhetoric was held and the Brazilian Society of Rhetoric was founded.
- 171.
Among the Ph.D. students engaged in argumentation research at this university is Regina Braz da Silva Santos Rocha, who concentrates on developing from a dialogical perspective methods for teaching argumentative writing skills.
- 172.
- 173.
The electronic journal Controvérsias of the department of philosophy of the University of the Sinos River Valley (UNISINOS) focuses exclusively on the study of controversies.
- 174.
- 175.
An exception is Inbar (1999), who outlines a conceptual framework for the critical assessment of argumentation which – according to Inbar – differs in some of its core characteristics from conventional approaches: It is resolutely semantic rather than formal; it centers on obligations rather than on beliefs; and its analytical focus is on the contingent necessity of conclusions rather than on persuasiveness or formal validity.
- 176.
In Medieval Muslim scholarship, argumentation was very closely connected to theology. It was known in Arabic as ‘ilm al-kalaam, i.e., the science of speech, or more idiomatically “scholastic theology.” This took the form of scholarly debate and argumentation regarding the proper interpretation of Qur’anic verses relating to God’s names, attributes, and actions and how these were different from man’s names, attributes, and actions. The focus was on how to interpret verses that describe, for example, God speaking to Prophet Moses. The arguments centered around these questions: Does God speak? How can we envisage God’s speech? How can we interpret man’s freedom to act in light of God’s omnibus knowledge and God being the source of all that is and can be done in this world? Baghdad and other Muslim cities witnessed a lot of debates on these issues. A great deal of theological learning involved training on argumentation responding to such questions.
- 177.
The Hijra calendar begins in 622 A.D., when the Prophet Muhammed emigrated from Mecca to Medina.
- 178.
Other useful books which appeared around the same time are Amina Al-Dahri’s (2011) Al-Ḥijāj wa Binā’ al-Khitāb [Argumentation and the structure of discourse], published in Casa Blanca, and Al-Ḥijāj bayna al-Minwāl wa al-Mithāl [Argumentation between theory and practice] by the young Tunisian Ali Al-Shaba’an (2008).
- 179.
Two recent book publications of a young Egyptian researcher, Imad Abdullatif (2012a, b) are Istratijiyyāt al-Iqnā’ wa al-Ta’thīr fi al-Khitāb al-Siyāsi: Khutab al-Ra’iīs al-Sadāt Namuthajan [Persuasion strategies in political discourse: President Sadat’s speeches as a model] and Al-Balāgha wa Ttawāsul ‘Abr al-Thaqāfāt [Rhetoric and cross-cultural communication].
- 180.
In March 2010, a one-day conference was devoted exclusively to Azzawi’s work. The conference took place in the King Abdul-Aziz Al Saoud Foundation for Islamic Studies and Human Science in Casablanca, Morocco.
- 181.
Hammadi Sammoud translated together with Abdelkader Mhiri also several French studies on linguistics and discourse analysis into Arabic.
- 182.
According to Morrison, indigenous rhetorical theory is lacking in Japan. See also Becker (1983).
- 183.
Among these thinkers are Shotoku Taishi (574–622), Kukai (774–835), Genshin (942–1017), Honen (1133–1212), Jien (1155–1225), Myoe (1173–1232), Shinran (1173–1263), Dogen (1200–1253), Nichiren (1222–1282), Ippen (1239–1289), Kitabatake Chikafusa (1293–1354), Fujiwara Seika (1561–1619), Suzuki Shosan (1579–1655), Hayashi Razan (1583–1657), Nakae Toju (1608–1648), Yamazaki Ansai (1618–1682), Yamaga Sokō (1622–1685), Ito Jinsai (1627–1705), Kaibara Ekken (1630–1713), Ogyū Sorai (1666–1728), Motoori Norinaga (1730–1801), Hirata Atsutane (1776–1843), Nishida Kitaro (1870–1945), Tanabe Hajime (1885–1962), Uehara Senroku (1899–1975), and Nishitani Keiji (1900–1990). See Ishii (1992) and Itaba (1995).
- 184.
Okabe (1986–1988) identified 145 Japanese books on rhetorical theory, practice, and criticism published during the Meiji era which are to a large extent based on Western rhetoric. He selected eight representative studies written along the lines of classical rhetoric for a more detailed analysis.
- 185.
According to Okabe (1990, p. 376), “the influence of Western rhetoric in Japan was at its height during the second and third decades of Meiji. The second saw many Japanese translations of Western rhetorical sources, and the third brought a gradual increase in works based on classical rhetoric written by Japanese theorists and practitioners of oratory” (p. 376).
- 186.
The only difference between speech and debate consisted in the number of participants. Debate was classified into two types: parliamentary debate (as in the National Diet) and oratorical debate (as in the courtroom).
- 187.
- 188.
According to Okabe (1989, p. 557), Japanese style is characterized by implicitness and ambiguity, exemplified by a preference for understatement and hesitation.
- 189.
More generally, it is often observed that Japanese Buddhist culture, influenced by Taoism and Confucian ethics, worked against the development of oratory. In this connection, the hierarchical and static structure of Japanese society, starting already in the family, are also mentioned, together with the preference for cohesion and harmony, supported by ceremony, conformity, and obedience.
- 190.
Morrison (1972), who is prejudiced against the Japanese language, sees as one of the major stumbling blocks in developing a rhetorical tradition that “a language so deficient makes any kind of argumentation extremely difficult” (pp. 100–101).
- 191.
As Hazen (1982) explained: “The desire to learn English and its linkage with Western forms of logical thinking is coupled with a belief that the Japanese language is ‘emotional’ and does not express classical forms of Western logic well” (p. 11).
- 192.
For an exceptional choice for an informal logical perspective, see Takuzo Konishi (2007).
- 193.
See also Masako Suzuki et al. (2011).
- 194.
Debeito kousien, for example, one of the largest Japanese-language high school debate tournaments, started in 1996 supported by the newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun.
- 195.
The establishment of the Tokyo Conference on Argumentation in 2000 is the most striking development in Japanese argumentation theory in recent years. As is testified by its proceedings, this Conference brings together (as keynote speakers and otherwise) argumentation scholars from the East and the West.
- 196.
Among the Japanese scholars who completed doctoral dissertations in rhetorical/critical analysis in the United States are Miyori Nakazawa (Northwestern University, 1989), Takeshi Suzuki (Northwestern University, 1996), Mitsuhiro Fujimaki (University of Iowa, 2004), Satoru Aonuma (Wayne State University, 2005), and Junya Morooka (University of Pittsburgh, 2006).
- 197.
George Ziegelmueller taught Naoto Usui and Satoru Aonuma; Thomas Goodnight and David Zarefsky taught Miyori Nakazawa, Takeshi Suzuki, Haruno Yamamaki-Ogasawara, and Hiroko Okuda; Donn Parson and Robert Rowland taught Takeshi Suzuki and Noriko Hasegawa; Bruce Gronbeck and Michael McGee taught Satoru Aonuma and Hideki Kakita; Michael Hazen, who coached a successful American debate team visiting Japan in the 1970s, taught Mitsuhiro Fujimaki, Tomohiro Kanke, and Junya Morooka; more recently, Gordon Mitchell taught Takuzo Konishi and Junya Morooka.
- 198.
For one thing, by introducing pragma-dialectics by means of translations to a Japanese readership
- 199.
Gordon Mitchell in 2003, Frans van Eemeren in 2004 and 2011, Thomas Hollihan in 2007 and 2012, Thomas Goodnight in 2008, and David Zarefsky in 2009
- 200.
Classic argumentation theory in ancient China is characterized by extensive studies of analogical arguments.
- 201.
A famous example of a parārtha-anumāna quoted by Stcherbatsky (2011b, p. 110A) is: “Wherever there is no fire, there isn’t smoke either (major premise), But there is smoke here (minor premise), Hence there is fire here (conclusion).”
- 202.
- 203.
Currently they are concentrating on argumentative practices of Chinese minorities in Tibet, Mongolia, and Sinkiang.
- 204.
Based on reports of ethnographic fieldwork and on research concerning ancient Chinese logic, Ju (2010) argues for the cultural relativity of logic and proposes a concept of argumentation that introduces cultural aspects into argumentation studies.
- 205.
It is worth mentioning that also a great many critical thinking textbooks written by American scholars have been translated into Chinese (e.g., Browne and Keeley (2004), published in 2006; Moore and Parker (2009), published in 2007; and Paul and Elder (2002), published in 2010). In spite of some popularity in pedagogy however, they have had very little impact on argumentation studies.
- 206.
Next to being used in studies of legal logic, informal logic is currently also adopted as a tool for re-interpreting classic Chinese argumentation studies.
References
Aarnio, A. (1987). The rational as reasonable. A treatise on legal justification. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Abderrahmane, T. (1985). Essai sur les logiques des raisonnements argumentatifs et naturels [A treatise on deductive and natural argumentation and its models] (4 Vols). Doctoral dissertation, Sorbonne University Paris, Paris.
Abderrahmane, T. (1987). Fī Uṣūl al-Ḥiwār wa Tajdīd ‘Ilm al-Kalām [On the basics of dialogue and the renovation of Islamic scholastics]. Beirut: Markaz al-Thaqāfī al-ʿArabī. (3rd ed., 2007).
Abdullatif, I. (2012a). Istratijiyyāt al-Iqnā’ wa al-Ta’thīr fi al-Khitāb al-Siyāsi: Khutab a-Ra’iīs al-Sadāt Namūthajan [Persuasion strategies in political discourse. President Sadat’s speeches as a model]. Cairo: al-Hay’a al-Misriyya al-‘Āmma lil-Kitāb.
Abdullatif, I. (2012b). Albalāgha wa Ttawāsul ‘Abr al-Thaqāfāt [Rhetoric and cross-cultural communication]. Cairo: al-Hay’a al-‘Āmma li Quṣūr al-Thaqāfa.
AbdulRaof, H. (2006). Arabic rhetoric. A pragmatic analysis. London/New York: Routledge.
Aczél, P. (2009). Új retorika [New rhetoric]. Bratislava: Kalligram Könyvkiadó.
Aczél, P. (2012). Médiaretorika [Media rhetoric]. Budapest: Magyar Mercuris.
Adam, J.-M. (2004). Une approche textuelle de l’argumentation. “Schema”, sequence et phrase périodique [A textual approach to argumentation. “Scheme”, sequence, and periodic sentence]. In M. Doury & S. Moirand (Eds.), L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation [Argumentation today. Theoretical positions in confrontation] (pp. 77–102). Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Adam, J.-M., & Bonhomme, M. (2003). L’argumentation publicitaire. Rhétorique de l’éloge et de la persuasion. L’analyse du divers aspects du discours publicitaire [Argumentation in advertising. Rhetoric of eulogy and persuasion. The analysis of different aspects of advertising discourse]. Paris: Nathan. (1st ed., 1997).
Adelswärd, V. (1987). The argumentation of self in job interviews. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Analysis and practices. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 327–336). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Adelswärd, V. (1988). Styles of success. On impression management as collaborative action in job interviews. Linköping: University of Linköping: Linköping Studies in Arts and Science.
Adelswärd, V. (1991). The use of formulations in the production of arguments. A study of interviews with conscientious objectors. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990 (pp. 591–603). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K., & Linell, P. (1988). Discourse of blame. Courtroom construction of social identity from the perspective of the defendant. Semiotica, 71, 261–284.
Adeodato, J. M. (2009). A retórica constitucional (sobre tolerância, direitos humanos e outros fundamentos éticos do direito positivo) [Constitutional rhetoric (about tolerance, human rights and other ethical foundations of positive law)]. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Adrian, T. (2011). El uso de la metáfora en Rómulo Betancourt y Hugo Chávez [The use of metaphor in Rómulo Betancourt and Hugo Chávez]. Madrid: EAE Editorial Academia Española.
Ajdukiewicz, K. (1965). The problem of foundation. In K. Ajdukiewicz (Ed.), The foundation of statements and decisions. Proceedings of the international colloquium on methodology of sciences held in Warsaw, 18–23 September 1961 (pp. 1–11). Warszawa: PWN – Polish Scientific Publishers.
Ajdukiewicz, K. (1974). Pragmatic logic (trans: Reidel, D.). Dordrecht: PWN – Polish Scientific Publishers. [trans.: Wojtasiewicz, O of K. Ajdukiewicz (1974), Logika pragmatyczna, Warsaw: PWN – Polish Scientific Publishers].
Alaoui, H. F. (Ed.). (2010). al-Ḥijāj. Mafhūmuhu wa Majālātuhu [Argumentation. The concept and the fields]. Irbid: ʿAlam al-Kutub al-ḥadith.
Alburquerque, L. (1995). El arte de hablar en público. Seis retóricas famosas [The art of public speaking. Six famous rhetorics]. Madrid: Visor Libros.
Alcolea Banegas, J. (2007). Visual arguments in film. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 35–41). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Al-Dahri, A. (2011). Al-Ḥijāj wa Binā’ al-Khitāb [Argumentation and the structure of discourse]. Casa Blanca: Manshūrāt al-Madāris.
Alekseyev, A. P. (1991). Argumentacia, pzonaniye, obsheniye [Argumentation, cognition, communication]. Moscow: Moscow University Press.
Alexandrova, D. (1984). Античните извори на реториката [Antique sources of rhetorics]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Alexandrova, D. (1985). Проблеми на реториката [Problems of rhetoric]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.
Alexandrova, D. (1997). Реторическата аргументация – същност на продуктивния диалог в обучението [The rhetorical argumentation – A basis of productive dialogue in teaching]. Pedagogika, 5, 37–45.
Alexandrova, D. (1999). Хаим Перелман и неговата “Нова реторика” или Трактат по аргументация [Chaim Perelman and his “New Rhetoric” or Treatise on argumentation]. Filosofski Alternativi, 3–4, 29–46.
Alexandrova, D. (2006). Метаморфози на реториката през ХХ век [Metamorphoses of rhetoric in the twentieth century]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Alexandrova, D. (2008). Основи на реториката [Fundaments of rhetoric]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Alexy, R. (1978). Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationale Diskurses as Theorie der juristischen Begründung [A theory of legal argumentation]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Spanish transl. by M. Atienza and I. Espejo as Teoría de la argumentación jurídica. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, 1989).
Al-Shaba’an, A. (2008). Al-Ḥijāj bayna al-Minwāl wa al-Mithāl [Argumentation between theory and practice]. Tunis: Maskilyāni Publishers.
Álvarez, G. (1996). Textos y discursos. Introducción a la lingüística del texto [Texts and discourses. Introduction to textual linguistics]. Concepción: Universidad de Concepción.
Álvarez, J. F. (2007). The risk of arguing: From persuasion to dissuasion. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 65–71). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Álvarez, N., & Sánchez, I. (2001). El discurso argumentativo de los escolares venezolanos [Venezuelan students’ argumentative discourse]. Letras, 62, 81–96.
Amestoy, M. (1995). Procesos básicos del pensamiento [Basic processes of thinking]. Mexico: Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México.
Andersson, J., & Furberg, M. (1974). Språk och påverkan. Om argumentationens semantik [Language and practice. The semantics of argumentation] (1st ed. 1966). Stockholm: Aldus/Bonnier.
Andone, C. (2012). Review of Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2009) Giving reasons. A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Argumentation, 26, 291–296.
Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M. J., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer-support, and the educational con tekst of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Andriessen, J. E. B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. W. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education. The foundation and practices (pp. 145–164). Berlin: Springer.
Angenot, M. (1982). La parole pamphlétaire. Contribution à la typologie des discours modernes [Contribution to the typology of modern discourses]. Paris: Payot.
Angenot, M. (2004). Rhétorique de l’anti-socialisme [Rhetoric of anti-socialism]. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.
Apel, K. O. (1988). Diskurs und Verantwortung [Discourse and responsibility]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Apeltauer, E. (1978). Elemente und Verlaufsformen von Streitgesprächen [Elements and proceedings of disputations]. Doctoral dissertation, Münster University, Münster.
Apostolova, G. (1994). Моделиране на диалога [Modelling the dialogue]. Philosophski Alternativi, 3, 112–122.
Apostolova, G. (1999). Убеждаващата комуникация. културната традиция и прагматичните императиви [Persuasive discourse. Cultural tradition and pragmatic imperatives]. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo.
Apostolova, G. (2011). Английският философски текст. интерпретация и превод [The texts of English philosophy. Interpretation and translation]. Blagoevgrad: BON.
Apostolova, G. (2012). Култури и текстове. Интернет, интертекст, интеркултура [Cultures and texts. Internet, intertext, interculture]. Blagoevgrad: SWU Publishing House.
Atkin, A., & Richardson, J. E. (2007). Arguing about Muslims. (Un)reasonable argumentation in letters to the editor. Text and Talk, 27(1), 1–25.
Auchlin, A. (1981). Réflexions sur les marqueurs de structuration de la conversation [Reflections on markers of conversational structure]. Études de Linguistique Appliquee, 44, 88–103.
Azar, M. (1995). Argumentative texts in newspapers. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Reconstruction and application. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), III (pp. 493–500). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Azar, M. (1999). Refuting counter-arguments in written essays. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 19–21). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Azzawi, A. B. (1990). Quelques connecteurs pragmatiques en Arabe littéraire. Approche argumentaire et polyphonique [Some pragmatic connectors in literary Arabic. An argumentative and polyphonic approach]. Lille: A.N.R.T. Doctoral dissertation, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Azzawi, A. B. (2006). Al-Lugha wa al-Ḥijāj [Language and argumentation] (2nd ed. 2009). Casablanca: al-Aḥmadiyya. Beirut: Muʼassast al-Riḥāb al-Ḥadīthah.
Azzawi, A. B. (2010). Al-Khitāb wa al-Ḥijāj [Discourse and argumentation] (2nd ed.). Casablanca: Al-Aḥmadiyya. Beirut: Muʼassasat al-Riḥāb al-Ḥadīthah (1st ed. 2007).
Baesler, J. E., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582–602.
Bakalov, G. (1924). Ораторско изкуство за работници [Public speaking for workers]. София: Edison. Library Nov Pat 8.
Baker, M. J. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. W. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education. The foundation and practices (pp. 127–144). Berlin: Springer.
Baranov, A. N. (1990). Linguisticheskaya teoriya argumentatsii (kognitivny podhod) [Linguistic theory of argumentation. A cognitive approach]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Moscow, Moscow.
Barilli, R. (1969). Poetica e retorica [Poetics and rhetoric]. Milan: Mursia.
Barros, D. L. P. de (2011). Preconceito e intolerância. Reflexões linguístico-discursivas. [Prejudice and intolerance: Linguistic-discursive reflections]. São Paulo: Editora Mackenzie.
Barthes, R. (1970). L’ancienne rhétorique. Aide mémoire [The old rhetoric. A compendium]. Communications, 16, 172–223.
Becker, C. (1983). The Japanese way of debate. National Forensic Journal, 1, 141–147.
Bengtsson, M. (2011). Defining functions of Danish political commentary. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation. Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1–11). Windsor, ON. CD rom.
Bentancur, L. (2009). El desarrollo de la competencia argumentativa [The development of argumentative competence]. Montevideo: Quehacer Educativo.
van Benthem, J. (2009). One logician’s perspective on argumentation. Cogency, 1(2), 13–26.
Berk, U. (1979). Konstruktive Argumentationstheorie [A constructive theory of argumentation]. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Bermejo-Luque, L. (2007). The justification of the normative nature of argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 113–118). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Bermejo-Luque, L. (2011). Giving reasons. A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Besedina, Y. V. (2011). Argumentativnyj diskurs kognitivno-slozhnyh i kognitivno-prostyh lichnostej [Argumentative discourse of cognitively-complex and cognitively-simple individuals]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Bigi, S. (2011). The persuasive role of ethos in doctor-patient interactions. Communication and Medicine, 8(1), 67–76.
Bigi, S. (2012). Evaluating argumentative moves in medical consultations. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 51–65.
Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (2011). Argumentation, arguing, and arguments. Comments on Giving reasons. Theoria, 72, 279–287.
Björnsson, G., Kihlbom, U., & Ullholm, A. (2009). Argumentationsanalys. Färdigheter för kritiskt tänkande [Argumentation analysis. Dispositions for critical thinking]. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.
Bonhomme, M. (1987). Linguistique de la métonymie [Linguistics of metonymy]. Bern: Peter Lang.
Bonhomme, M. (1998). Les figures clés du discours [The key discourse figures]. Paris: Le Seuil.
Bonhomme, M. (2005). Pragmatique des figures du discours [The pragmatics of discourse figures]. Paris: Champion.
Bonhomme, M. (2006). Le discours métonymique [Metonymical discourse]. Bern: Peter Lang.
Borges, H. F. (2005). Vida, razão e justice. Racionalidade argumentativa na motivação judiciária [Life, reason and justice. Argumentative rationality in judicial motivation]. Coimbra: Minerva Coimbra.
Borges, H. F. (2009). Nova retórica e democratização da justiça [New rhetoric and democratization of justice]. In H. J. Ribeiro (Ed.), Rhetoric and argumentation in the beginning of the 21st Century (pp. 297–308). Coimbra: Coimbra University Press.
Bose, I., & Gutenberg, N. (2003). Enthymeme and prosody. A contribution to empirical research in the analysis of intonation as well as argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 139–140). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Bowker, J. K., & Trapp, R. (1992). Personal and ideational dimensions of good and poor arguments in human interaction. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 220–230). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Braet, A. (1979–1980). Taaldaden. Een leergang schriftelijke taalbeheersing [Speech acts. A curriculum on writing and reading]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Braet, A. (1987). The classical doctrine of status and rhetorical theory of argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 20, 79–93.
Braet, A. (1995). Schrijfvaardigheid Nederlands [Writing skills in Dutch]. Bussum: Coutinho.
Braet, A. (1996). On the origin of normative argumentation theory. The paradoxical case of the Rhetoric to Alexander. Argumentation, 10, 347–359.
Braet, A. (1999). Argumentatieve vaardigheden [Argumentative skills]. Bussum: Coutinho.
Braet, A. (2004). Hermagoras and the epicheireme. Rhetorica, 22, 327–347.
Braet, A. (2007). De redelijkheid van de klassieke retorica. De bijdrage van klassieke retorici aan de argumentatietheorie [The reasonableness of classical rhetoric. The contribution of classical rhetoricians to the theory of argumentation]. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Braet, A., & Schouw, L. (1998). Effectief debatteren. Argumenteren en presenteren over beleid [Debating effectively. Policy argumentation and presentation]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Bregant, J., & Vezjak, B. (2007). Zmote in napake v argumentaciji. Vodič po slabi argumentaciji v družbenem vsakdanu [Fallacies in argumentation. A guide through bad argumentation in everyday life]. Maribor: Subkulturni azil.
Breivega, K. R. (2003). Vitskaplege argumentasjonsstrategiar [Scientific argumentation strategies]. Oslo: Norsk sakprosa.
Breton, P. (1996). L’argumentation dans la communication [Argumentation in communication] (Coll. Repères). Paris: La Découverte.
Breton, P., & Gauthier, G. (2011). Histoire des théories de l’argumentation [History of argumentation theory]. Paris: La Découverte.
Briushinkin, V. (2000). Sistemnaya model arguementacii [Systematic model of argumentation]. In Trancendental anthropology and logic. The Proceeding of International workshop ‘Anthropology from a modern stand’ (pp. 133–155). 7th Kantian Symposium. Kaliningrad: Kaliningrad University Press.
Briushinkin, V. (2008). Argumentorika. Ishodnaya abstrakciya b metodologiya [Argumentoric. Initial concept and approach]. In V. Briushinkin (Ed.), Modelling reasoning-2. Argumentation and rationality (pp. 7–19). Kaliningrad: Kaliningrad University Press.
Briushinkin, V. (2010). O dvoyakoi roli ritoriki v sistemnoi modeli argumentcii [On twofold role of rhetorics in the systematic model of argumentation]. ratio.ru. [web-journal], 3, 3–14.
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2004). Asking the right questions. A guide to critical thinking (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: Pearson. Chinese transl. 2006.
Brumark, Å. (2007). Argumentation at the Swedish dinner table. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 169–177). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Brutian, G. [A.] (1991). The architectonics of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference of argumentation. Organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990, 1A (pp. 61–63). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Brutian, G. A. (1992). The theory of argumentation, its main problems and investigative perspectives. In J. Pietarinen (Ed.), Problems of philosophical argumentation (Reports from the Department of Practical Philosophy Kätytánnöllisen Filosofian Julkaisuja, 5, pp. 5–17). Turku: University of Turku.
Brutian, G. [A.] (1998). Logic, language, and argumentation in projection of philosophical knowledge. Lisbon: Grafica de Coimbra.
Brutian, G. [A.], & Markarian, H. (1991). The language of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference of argumentation. Organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990, 1A (pp. 546–550). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Brutian, G. A., & Narsky, I. S. (Eds.). (1986). Problemy filosofskoi argumentatsii [Problems of philosophical argumentation]. Yerevan: Armenian SSR Publishing House.
Brutian, L. (1991). On the types of argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference of argumentation. Organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990, 1A (pp. 559–563). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Brutian, L. (2003). On the pragmatics of argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 141–144). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Brutian, L. (2007). Arguments in child language. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 179–183). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Brutian, L. (2011). Stylistic devices and argumentative strategies in public discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 162–169). Amsterdam: Rozenberg-Sic Sat. CD rom.
Budzynska, K. (2011). Structure of persuasive communication and elaboration likelihood model. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Proceedings of OSSA 2011. Argumentation. cognition & community. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. CD rom.
Budzynska, K. (2012). Circularity in ethotic structures. Synthese, 190, 3185–3207.
Budzynska, K., & Dębowska, K. (2010). Dialogues with conflict resolution. Goals and effects. In P. Lupkowski & M. Purver (Eds.), Aspects of semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 59–66). Poznań: Polish Society for Cognitive Science.
Budzynska, K., Dębowska-Kozłowska, K., Kacprzak, M., & Załeska, M. (2012). Interdyscyplinarność w badaniach nad argumentacją i perswazją [Interdisciplinarity in the studies on argumentation and persuasion]. In A. Chmielewski, M. Dudzikowa & A. Grobler (Eds.), Interdyscyplinarnie o interdyscyplinarności [Interdisciplinarity interdisciplinarily] (pp. 147–166). Kraków: Impuls.
Budzynska, K., & Kacprzak, M. (2008). A logic for reasoning about persuasion. Fundamenta Informaticae, 85, 51–65.
Budzynska, K., Kacprzak, M., & Rembelski, P. (2009). Perseus. Software for analyzing persuasion process. Fundamenta Informaticae, 93(1–3), 65–79.
Budzynska, K., & Reed, C. (2012). The structure of ad hominem dialogues. In B. Verheij, S. Szeider & S. Woltran (Eds.), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. Proceedings of 4th international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 2012) (pp. 410–421). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Burger, M. (2005). Argumentative and hierarchical dimensions of a broadcast debate sequence. A micro analysis. In M. Dascal, F. H. van Eemeren, E. Rigotti, A. Rocci, & S. Stati (Eds.), Argumentation in dialogic interaction (Special issue studies in communication sciences, pp. 249–264). Lugano: Università della Svizzera italiana.
Burger, M., Jacquin, J., & Micheli, R. (Eds.). (2011). La parole politique en confrontation dans les médias [Political language in confrontations in the media]. Bruxelles: de Boeck.
Burger, M., & Martel, G. (Eds.). (2005). Argumentation et communication dans les medias [Argumentation and communication in the media]. Québec: Nota Bene.
Bustamante, T. R. (2012). Teoria do precedente judicial. A justificação e a aplicação das regras jurisprudenciais [Theory of judicial precedent. The justification and application of legal rules]. São Paulo: Noeses.
Calheiros, M. C. (2008). Verdade, prova e narração [Truth, proof and narration]. In Revista do Centro de Estudos Judiciários [Journal of the Centre for Judicial Studies], 10, 281–296.
Camargo, M. M. L. (2010a). A prática institucional e a representação argumentativa no Caso Raposa Serra do Sol (primeira parte) [The institutional practice and argumentative representation in the Raposa Serra do Sol case (1st part)]. Revista Forense, 408, 02–19.
Camargo, M. M. L. (2010b). A prática institucional e a representação argumentativa no Caso Raposa Serra do Sol (segunda parte) [The institutional practice and argumentative representation in the Raposa Serra do Sol case (2nd part)]. Revista Forense, 409, 231–269.
Canale, D., & Tuzet, G. (2008). On the contrary. Inferential analysis and ontological assumptions of the a contrario argument. Informal Logic, 28(1), 31–43.
Canale, D., & Tuzet, G. (2009). The a simili argument. An inferentialist setting. Ratio Juri, 22(4), 499–509.
Canale, D., & Tuzet, G. (2010). What is the reason for this rule? An inferential account of the ratio legis. Argumentation, 24(3), 197–210.
Canale, D., & Tuzet, G. (2011). The argument from legislative silence. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 181–191). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Cantù, P., & Testa, I. (2006). Teorie dell’argomentazione. Una introduzione alle logiche del dialogo [Theories of argumentation. An introduction into the dialogue logics]. Milan: Bruno Mondadori.
Cantù, P., & Testa, I. (2011). Algorithms and arguments. The foundational role of the ATAI-question. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 192–203). Amsterdam: Rozenberg-Sic Sat.
Carbonell, F. (2011). Reasoning by consequences. Applying different argumentation structures to the analysis of consequentialist reasoning in judicial decisions. Cogency, 3(2), 81–104.
Cárdenas, A. (2005). Patrones de argumentación en alumnos de enseñanza media superior [Argumentative patterns of secondary school pupils]. Doctoral dissertation, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico.
Cardona, N. K. (2008). Yo lo sabía cuando era pequeño. Discurso argumentativo en niños de dos a cuatro años [I knew it when I was little. Argumentative discourse in children of two to four years old]. Doctoral dissertation, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico.
Carrascal, B., & Mori, M. (2011). Argumentation schemes in the process of arguing. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 225–236). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Carrilho, M. M. (1990). Verdade, suspeita e argumentação [Truth, suspicion and argumentation]. Lisbon: Presença.
Carrilho, M. M. (1992). Rhétoriques de la modernité [Rhetorics and modernity]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Carrilho, M. M. (1995). Aventuras da interpretação [Adventures of interpretation]. Lisbon: Presença.
Carrilho, M. M. (Ed.). (1994). Retórica e comunicação [Rhetoric and communication]. Porto: Asa.
Carrilho, M. M., Meyer, M., & Timmermans, B. (1999). Histoire de la rhétorique [History of rhetoric]. Paris: Le Livre de Poche.
Carvalho, J. C., & Carvalho, A. (Eds.). (2006). Outras retóricas [Other rhetorics]. Lisbon: Colibri.
Castelfranchi, C., & Paglieri, F. (2011). Why argue? Towards a cost-benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument and Computation, 1(1), 71–91.
Cattani, A[delino]. (1990). Forme dell’argomentare. Il ragionamento tra logica e retorica [Forms of arguing. Logical and rhetorical aspects of reasoning]. Padova: Edizioni GB.
Cattani, A[delino]. (1995). Discorsi ingannevoli. Argomenti per difendersi, attaccare, divertirsi [Deceitful reasoning. Arguments for defending, attacking and amusing]. Padova: Edizioni GB.
Cattani, A[delino]. (2001). Botta e risposta. L’arte della replica [Cut and thrust. The art of retort]. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Cattani, A[delino], Cantù, P., Testa, I., & Vidali, P. (Eds.). (2009). La svolta argomentativa. Cinquant’anni dopo Perelman e Toulmin [The argumentative turn. Fifty years after Perelman and Toulmin]. Naples: Loffredo University Press.
Cattani, A.[nnalisa]. (2003). Argumentative mechanisms in advertising. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 127–133). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Cattani, A.[nnalisa]. (2007). The power of irony in contemporary advertising. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 223–231). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Cattani, A[nnalisa]. (2009). Pubblicità e retorica [Advertising and rhetoric]. Milano: Lupetti.
Cavazza, N. (2006). La persuasione [Persuasion] (2nd ed.). Bologna: Il Mulino. (1st ed. 1996).
Charaudeau, P. (1992). Le mode d’organisation argumentatif [The argumentative way of organising]. In Grammaire du sens et de l’expression [A grammar of meaning and utterance] (pp. 779–833). Paris: Hachette.
Charaudeau, P. (2008). L’argumentation dans une problématique d’influence [Argumentation in a problematic case concerning influence]. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 1. [on line].
Chateauraynaud, F. (2011). Argumenter dans un champ de forces. Essai de balistique sociologique [Arguing in a field of force. Essay on sociological ballistics]. Paris: Pétra.
Cherkasskaya, N. (2009). Strategii i taktiki v apelliativvnom rechevom zhanre [Strategies and tactics in the appellative speech genre]. Doctoral dissertation, Udmurt State University, Izhevsk.
Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G. A., & Willmott, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.
Coelho, A. (1989). Desafio e refutação [Challenge and refutation]. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.
Collin, F., Sandøe, P., & Stefansen, N. C. (1987). Derfor. Bogen om argumentation [Therefore. A book on argumentation]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.
Comesaña, J. (1998). Lógica informal, falacias y argumentos [Informal logic, fallacies and arguments]. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.
Constantinescu, M., Stoica, G., & Uţă Bărbulescu, O. (Eds.). (2012). Modernitate şi interdisciplinaritate în cercetarea lingvistică. Omagiu doamnei profesor Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu [Modernity and interdisciplinarity in linguistics. A festschrift in honour of Professor Liliana Ionexcu-Ruxăndoiu] (pp. 227–241). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Crawshay-Williams, R. (1957). Methods and criteria of reasoning. An inquiry into the structure of controversy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Crespo, C. (2005). La importancia de la argumentación matemática en el aula [The importance of mathematical argumentation in the classroom]. Premisa. Revista de la Sociedad Argentina de Educación Matemática, 7(23), 23–29.
Crespo, C., & Farfán, R. (2005). Una visión de las argumentaciones por reducción al absurdo como construcción sociocultural [A vision of reduction to absurd argumentation as socio-cultural construction]. Relime, 8(3), 287–317.
Crespo, N. (1995). El desarrollo ontogenético del argumento [The ontogenetic development of argument]. Revista Signos, 37, 69–82.
Cuenca, M. J. (1995). Mecanismos lingüísticos y discursivos de la argumentación [Linguistic and discursive mechanisms of argumentation]. Comunicación, lenguaje y educación, 25, 23–40.
Cunha, P. F., & Malato, M. L. (2007). Manual de retórica & direito [Handbook of rhetoric & law]. Lisbon: Quid Juris.
Cunha, T. C. (2004). Argumentação e crítica [Argumentation and criticism]. Coimbra: Minerva Coimbra.
D’Agostini, F. (2010). Verità avvelaneta. Buoni e cattivi argomenti nel dibattito publico [Poisoned truth. Good and bad arguments in the public debate]. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
D’Agostini, F. (2011). Ad ignorantiam arguments, epistemicism and realism. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Damele, G. (2012). “A força das coisas”. O argumento naturalista na jurisprudência constitucional, entre a impotência do legislador e a omnipotência do juiz [“The force of things”. The naturalistic argument in constitutional case-law, between legislator’s powerlessness and judge’s omnipotence]. Revista Brasileira de Filosofia, 239, 11–34.
Damele, G., Dogliani, M., Matropaolo, A., Pallante, F., & Radicioni, D. P. (2011). On legal argumentation techniques. Towards a systematic approach. In M. A. Biasiotti & F. Sebastiano (Eds.), From information to knowledge. On line access to legal information. Methodologies, trends and perspectives (pp. 105–118). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Damele, G., & Savelka, J. (2011). Rhetoric and persuasive strategies in High Courts’ decisions. Some remarks on the Portuguese Tribunal Constitucional and the Italian Corte Costituzionale. In M. Araszkiewicz, M. Myška, J. Smejkalová, J. Savelka, & M. Skop (Eds.), Argumentation 2011. International conference on alternative methods of argumentation in law (pp. 81–94). Brno: Masaryk University.
Danblon, E. (2002). Rhétorique et rationalité. Essai sur l’émergence de la critique et de la persuasion [Rhetoric and rationality. Essay on the emergence of criticism and persuasion]. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelle.
Danblon, E. (2004). Argumenter en démocratie [Arguing in democracy]. Brussels: Labor.
Danblon, E. (2005). La function persuasive. Anthropologie du discours rhétorique. Origins et actualité [The persuasive function. Anthropology of rhetorical discourse. Origins and actuality]. Paris: Armand Colin.
Danblon, E. (2013). L’homme rhétorique. Culture, raison, action [The rhetorical man. Culture, reason, action]. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
Dascal, M. (1993). Interpreting and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Portuguese transl. as Interpretação e compreensão. São Leopoldo: Editora da Unisinos, 2006).
Dascal, M. (1994). Epistemology, controversies, and pragmatics. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Historia da Ciência, 12, 73–98.
Dascal, M. (1998). Types of polemics and types of polemical moves. In S. Cmejrkova, J. Hoffmannova, O. Mullerova, & J. Svetla (Eds.), Dialogue analysis, I (pp. 15–33). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Dascal, M. (2001). How rational can a polemic across the analytic-continental ‘divide’ be? International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 9(3), 313–339.
Dascal, M. (2005). Debating with myself and debating with others. In P. Barrotta & M. Dascal (Eds.), Controversies and subjectivity (pp. 31–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Portuguese transl. as ‘O auto-debate é possível? Dissolvendo alguns de seus supostos paradoxos’. Revista Internacional de Filosofia, 29(2), 319–349, 2006).
Dascal, M. (2007). Traditions of controversy and conflict resolution. In M. Dascal & H. L. Chang (Eds.), Traditions of controversy. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dascal, M. (2008). Dichotomies and types of debate. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dascal, M. (2009). Dichotomies and types of debates. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dascal, M., & Boantza, V. D. (Eds.). (2011). Controversies in the scientific revolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dascălu Jinga, L. (2002). Corpus de română vorbită (CORV). Eşantioane [Corpus of spoken Romanian (CORV). Samples]. Bucharest: Oscar Print.
Dębowska, K. (2010). Model pragma-dialektyczny a rozumowanie abdukcyjne [The pragma-dialectical model and abductive reasoning]. Forum Artis Rhetoricae, 20–21(1–2), 96–124.
Deimer, G. (1975). Argumentative Dialoge. Ein Versuch zu ihrer sprachwissenschaftlichen Beschreibung [Argumentative dialogue. An attempt at linguistic description]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Demaître-Lahaye, C. (2011). De la représentation discursive à la communication dissuasive. Perspectives pragmatiques en matière de prévention du suicide [From discursive representation to dissuasive communication. Pragmatic perspectives on the prevention of suicide]. Saarbrücken: Éditions Universitaires Européennes.
Deppermann, A., & Hartung, M. (2003). Argumentieren in Gesprächen [Argumentation in conversation]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Dias, A. (2008). O discurso da violência – As marcas da oralidade no jornalismo popular [The discourse of violence – The tokens of violence in popular journalism]. São Paulo: Cortez Editora.
Dichy, J. (2003). Kinâya, a tropic device from medieval Arabic rhetoric, and its impact on discourse theory. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 237–241). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA. A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95–120). London: Sage.
Dimiškovska Trajanoska, A. (2001). Прагматиката и теоријата на аргументацијата [Pragmatics and argumentation theory]. Skopје: Djurgjа.
Dimiškovska Trajanoska, A. (2006). Логиката, аргументацијата и јазикот. помеѓу аналитиката и дијалектиката [Logic, argumentation and language. Between analytics and dialectics], Филологические заметки/Филолошки студии/Filološke pripombe, 1(4), Пермский государстевенный университет, Россия, Институт за македонска литература, Скопје, Македонија, Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenija, Пермь-Skopьe-Любляна, 103–119.
Dimiškovska [Trajanoska], А. (2009). Субверзијата во аргументативниот дискурс и стратегии за справување со неа [Subversion in argumentative discourse and strategies for dealing with it]. Философија, 26(мај 2009), 93–111.
Dimiškovska Trajanoska, А. (2010). The logical structure of legal justification: Dialogue or ‘trialogue’? In D. M. Gabbay, P. Canivez, S. Rahman, & A. Thiercelin (Eds.), Approaches to legal rationality (pp. 265–280). Dordrecht: Springer.
Dimiškovska [Trajanoska], А. (2011). Truth and nothing but the truth? The argumentative use of fictions in legal reasoning. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 366–378). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Discini, N. (2008) Paixão e éthos [Passion and ethos]. In Anais do III Simpósio Internacional sobre análise do discurso: emoções, éthos e argumentação, III (pp. 1–9). Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
Djidjian, R. (1992). Transformational analysis and inner argumentation. In J. Pietarinen (Ed.), Problems of philosophical argumentation, II, special problems. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
Dolinina, I. B. (1992). Change of scientific paradigms as an object of the theory of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 73–84). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Dolinina, I. B. (2007). Arguments against/pro directives: Taxonomy. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 337–342). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Douay-Soublin, F. (1990a). Non, la rhétorique française au 18e siècle n’est pas “restreinte” aux tropes [No, French rhetoric in the 18th century was not “restricted” to tropes]. Histoire Epistémologie Langage, 12(1), 123–132.
Douay-Soublin, F. (1990b). “Mettre dans le jour d’apercevoir ce qui est.” Tropologie et argumentation chez Dumarsais [“Bring to light the world as it is.” Dumarsais’s tropology and argumentation]. In M. Meyer & A. Lempereur (Eds), Figures et Conflits Rhétoriques [Figures and rhetorical conflicts] (pp. 83–102). Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Douay-Soublin, F. (1994a). Y-a-t-il renaissance de la rhétorique en France au XIXe siècle? [Is there a revival of rhetoric in France in the 19th century?]. In S. I. Jsseling & G. Vervaecke (Eds.), Renaissances of rhetoric (pp. 51–154). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Douay-Soublin, F. (1994b). Les figures de rhétorique. Actualité, reconstruction, remploi [Rhetorical figures. Topicality, redevelopment, re-use]. Langue Française, 101, 13–25.
Doury, M., Plantin, C., & Traverso.V. (Eds.). (2000). Les émotions dans les interactions [Emotions in interactions]. Lyon: PUL/ARCI.
Doury M., & Traverso, V. (2000). Usage des énoncés généralisants dans la mise en scène de lignes argumentatives en situation d’entretien [The use of generalizing utterances in the production of lines of argument in a conversational context]. In G. Martel (Ed.), Autour de l’argumentation. Rationaliser l’expérience quotidienne [Around argumentation. Rationalising everyday experiences] (pp. 47–80). Québec: Editions Nota Bene.
Drop, W., & Vries, J. H. L. de (1974). Taalbeheersing. Handboek voor taalhantering [Speech communication. Handbook of speech management]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Ducrot, O. (1986). Polifonía y argumentación [Polyphony and argumentation]. Cali: Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad de Cali.
Ducrot, O., Bourcier, D., Bruxelles, S., Diller, A.-M., Foucquier, E., Gouazé, J., Maury, L., Nguyen, T. B., Nunes, G., Ragunet de Saint-Alban, L. Rémis, A., & Sirdar-Iskander, C. (1980). Les mots du discours [The words of discourse]. Paris: Minuit.
Dufour, M. (2008). Argumenter [Arguing]. Paris: Armand Colin.
Dufour, M. (2010). Explication scientifique et explication non scientifique [Scientific and non-scientific explanation]. In E. Bour & S. Roux (Eds.), Lambertiana (pp. 411–435). Paris: Vrin.
Dumarsais, C. C. (1988). Des tropes, ou des différents sens [About tropes or about the different meanings]. In F. Douay-Soublin (Ed.). Paris: Flammarion.
Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Strachocka, A., Szałas, A., & Verbrugge, R. (2012). A paraconsistent approach to speech acts. ArgMAS’2012: 9th International workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, pp. 59–78.
Dunin-Kęplicz, B., & Verbrugge, R. (2010). Teamwork in multi-agent systems. A formal approach. Chichester: Wiley.
Eabrasu, M. (2009). A reply to the current critiques formulated against Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Libertarian Papers, 1(20), 1–29.
Eco, U. (1987). Il messaggio persuasivo [The persuasive message]. In E. Mattioli (Ed.), Le ragioni della retorica (pp. 11–27). Modena: Mucchi.
Engdahl, E., Glang, M., & O’Brien, A. The rhetoric of store-window mannequins. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation. Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9 th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). Windsor, ON. CD rom.
Engelhardt, H. T., & Caplan, A. L. (Eds.). (1987). Scientific controversies. Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eriksson, L. (1998). Traditions of rhetorical proof. Pauline argumentation in 1 Corinthians. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund, Lund.
Evers, J. (1970). Argumentationsanalys för jurister [Argumentation analysis for lawyers]. Lund: Gleerups.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). London: Longman (1st ed. 1989).
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis. A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
Faria, A. A. M. (2001). Interdiscurso, intradiscurso e leitura. O caso de Germinal [Interdiscourse, intradiscourse and reading. The case of Germinal]. In H. Mari, R. de Mello & I. L. Machado (Eds.). Análise do discurso. Fundamentos e práticas [Discourse analysis. Foundations and practices)]. Belo Horizonte: Núcleo de Análise do discurso - Faculdade de Letras da UFMG.
Ferrari, A., & Manzin, M. (Eds.). (2004). La retorica fra scienza e professione legale. Questioni di metodo [Rhetoric between science and the legal profession. Methodological questions]. Milan: Guffrè.
Ferraz Jr., T. S. (1997a). Direito, retórica e comunicação [Law, rhetoric and communication] (2nd ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva.
Ferraz Jr., T. S. (1997b). Teoria da norma juridical. Ensaio de pragmática da comunicação normativa [Theory of legal norm. An essay on pragmatics of normative communication] (3rd ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Forense.
Ferreira, A. (2008). On the role of pragmatics, rhetoric and dialectics in scientific controversies. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 125–133). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ferreira, A. (2009). On the role of pragmatics, rhetoric and dialectic in scientific controversies. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation (pp. 125–133). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ferreira, I., & Serra, P. (Eds.). (2011). Rhetoric and mediatisation, I: Proceedings of the 1st meeting on rhetoric at UBI. Covilhã: LabCom Books.
Ferreira, L. A. (2010). Leitura e persuasão. Princípios de análise reórica [Reading and persuasion. Principles of rhetorical analysis]. São Paul: Contexto.
Ferreira, L. A. (Ed.). (2012). A retórica do medo [The rhetoric of fear]. Franca: Cristal.
Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer c. (trans. into Chinese (2005) & Spanish (2007)).
Feteris, E. T. (2005). [Chinese title]. Beijing: Law department University of Central Finance and Economy. [trans.: Qi Yuhan of Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of legal decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic].
Feteris, E. T. (2007). Fundamentos de la argumentación jurídica. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia. [trans.: Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of legal decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic].
Filliettaz, L., & Roulet, E. (2002). The Geneva model of discourse analysis. An interactionist and modular approach to discourse organization. Discourse Studies, 4(3), 369–393.
Focas, J. D. (2010). A ética do discurso como uma virada linguística [The ethics of discourse as a linguistic turn]. Revista Litteris, 4, 1–12.
Føllesdal, D., Walloe L., & Elster J. (1986). Rationale Argumentation. Ein Grundkurs in Argumentations- und Wissenschafstheorie [Rational argumentation. An introduction in the theory of argumentation and science]. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Fontanier, P. (1968). Les figures du discours [The figures of discourse]. (Combined edition of the Manuel classique pour l’étude des tropes, 1821 and Des Figures du discours autres que les tropes, 1827). Paris: Flammarion.
Forchtner, B., & Tominc, A. (2012). On the relation between the discourse-historical approach and pragma-dialectics. Journal of Language and Politics, 11(1), 31–50.
Fowler, R., & Kress, G. (1979). Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 185–214). London: Routledge.
Freeman, J. B. (2011). The logical dimension of argumentation and its semantic appraisal in Bermejo-Luque’s Giving reasons. Theoria, 72, 289–299.
Fritz, G. (2008). Communication principles for controversies. A historical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 109–124). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Frixen, G. (1987). Struktur und Dynamik natürlichsprachlichen Argumentierens [Structure and dynamics of everyday argumentation]. Papiere zur Linguistik, 36, 45–111.
Frumeșelu, M. D. (2007). Linguistic and argumentative typologies of concession. An integrating approach. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 425–431). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Frydman, B., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2012). Chaïm Perelman (1912–2012) – De la nouvelle rhétorique à la logique juridique [Chaïm Perelman (1912–2012) – From the new rhetoric to the legal logic]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Fuentes, C., & Kalawski, A. (2007). Toward a ‘pragma-dramatic’ approach to argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 433–436). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Gabrielsen, J. (2003). Is there a topical dimension to the rhetorical example? In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 349–353). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Gabrielsen, J. (2008). Topik. Ekskursioner i den retoriske toposlaere [Topica. Excursions into the rhetorical doctrine of topos]. Åstorp: Retoriksforlaget.
Gabrielsen, J., Just, S. N., & Bengtsson, M. (2011). Concepts and contexts – Argumentative forms of framing. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 533–543). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Ganea, A. (2011). Strategically manoeuvring with reporting in the argumentation stage of a critical discussion. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 544–552). Amsterdam: Rozenberg-Sic Sat.
Ganea, A. (2012). Evidentialité et argumentation. L’expression de la source de l’information dans le discours [Evidentiality and argumentation. Expressing the source of information in discourse]. Cluj-Napoca: Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă.
Ganea, A., & Gâţă, A. (2009). On the use of evidential strategies in Romanian. The case of cum că. Interstudia 2. Language, Discourse, Society, 3, 50–59.
Ganea, A., & Gâţă, A. (2010). Identification and terming. Dissociation as strategic maneuvering in the Romanian public space. In S. N. Osu, G. Col, N. Garric & F. Toupin (Eds.), Construction d’identité et processus d’identification [Identity building and process(es) of identification] (pp. 109–121). Bern: Peter Lang.
Garavelli, M. B. (1989). Manuale di retorica [Handbook of rhetoric]. Milan: Bompiani.
Gaspar, A. (1998). Instituições da retórica forense [Institutions of forensic rhetoric]. Coimbra: Minerva.
Gâţă, A. (2007). La dissociation argumentative. Composantes, mise en discours et ajustement stratégique [Argumentative dissociation. Constitutive elements, discourse structuring, and strategic maneuvering]. In V. Atayan & D. Pirazzini (Eds.), Argumentation. théorie – langue – discours. Actes de la section Argumentation du XXX. Congrès des Romanistes Allemands Vienne, septembre 2007 [Argumentation theory – language – discourse. Proceedings of the section Argumentation of the 30th Congress of German Romanists in Vienna, 3–18 September 2007] (pp. 3–18). Frankfurt am Main-Vienna: Peter Lang.
Gâţă, A. (2010). Identification, dissociation argumentative et construction notionnelle [Identification, argumentative dissociation, and notional construction]. In S. N. Osu, G. Col, N. Garric & F. Toupin (Eds.), Construction d’identité et processusd’identification [Identity building and process(es) of identification] (pp. 469–482). Bern: Peter Lang.
Gauthier, G. (2004). L’argumentation autour de l’élection présidentielle française de2002 dans la presse québécoise. L’application d’une approche analytique de l’argumentation [The argumentation concerning the French presidential elections of 2002 in the Quebec press. The application of an analytical approach to argumentation]. In P. Maarek (Ed.), La communication politique française après le tournant de 2002 [French political communication after the turning-point of 2002] (pp. 187–201). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Gelang, M., & Kjeldsen, J. E. (2011). Nonverbal communication as argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 567–576). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping. A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.
Gerhardus, D., Kledzig, S. M., & Reitzig, G. H. (1975). Schlüssiges Argumentieren. Logisch Propädeutisches Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch [Sound arguing. Logical pre-school text book]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Gil, F. (Ed.). (1999). A ciência tal qual se faz [Science as it is made]. Lisbon: Ministério da Ciência e da Tecnologia/Edições Sá Costa.
Gilardoni, A. (2008). Logica e argomentazione. Un prontuario [Logic and argumentation. A handbook] (3d ed.). Milan: Mimesis. (1st ed. 2005).
Gol[o]ubev, V. (1999). Looking at argumentation through communicative intentions: Ways to define fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 239–245). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Golubev, V. (2001). American print media persuasion dialogue: An argumentation recipient’s perspective. In Pragmatics in 2000. Selected papers from the seventh international pragmatics conference, 2 (pp. 249–262). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Golubev, V. (2002a). The 2000 American Presidential TV debate. Dialogue or fight? In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 397–402). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Golubev, V. (2002b). Argumentation dialogue in the American newspaper. An interdependence of discourse logical and communicative aspects. In G. T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing communication and culture, 2. Selected papers from the twelfth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 75–83). National Communication Association.
Golubev, V. (2007). Putin’s terrorism discourse as part of democracy and governance debate in Russia. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 471–477). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Gómez, A. L. (2003). Argumentos y falacias [Argumentation and fallacies]. Cali: Editorial Facultad de Humanidades Universidad de Valle.
Gómez, A. L. (2006). Seis lecciones sobre teoría de la argumentación [Six lectures on argumentation theory]. Cali: Editorial Alego.
Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art. An approach to a theory of symbols (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett. (1st ed. 1968).
Goudkova, K. (2009). Kognitivno-pragmatichesky analiz argumentatsii v analiticheskoy gazetnoy statye [Cognitive-pragmatical analysis of argumentation of the analytical newspaper article]. Doctoral dissertation, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg.
Goudkova, K. V., & Tretyakova, T. P. (2011). Binary oppositions in media argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 656–662). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Grabnar, B. (1991). Retorika za vsakogar [Rhetoric for everyone]. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije
Grácio, R. A. (1993). Perelman’s rhetorical foundation of philosophy. Argumentation, 7, 439–449.
Grácio, R. A. (1998). Consequências da retórica. Para uma revalorização do múltiplo e do controverso [Consequences of rhetoric. Towards a revaluation of the multiple and the controversial]. Coimbra: Pé de Página.
Grácio, R. A. (2010). A interacção argumentativa [The argumentative interaction]. Coimbra: Grácio Editor.
Grácio, R. A. (2011). Para uma teoria geral da argumentação. Questões teóricas e aplicações didácticas [Towards a general argumentation theory. Theoretical questions and didactic applications]. Braga: Universidade do Minho. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minho, Minho.
Grasso, F., & Paris, C. (2011). Preface to the special issue on personalization for e-health. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 21, 333–340.
Graver, H.-P. (2010). Rett, retorikk og juridisk argumentasjon. Keiserens garderobe og andre essays [Justice, rhetoric, and judicial argumentation. The emperor’s new clothes and other essays]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Grewendorf, G. (1975). Argumentation und Interpretation. Wissenschaftstheoretische Untersuchungen am Beispiel germanistischer Lyrikinterpretationen [Argumentation and interpretation. A study of interpretations of German poetry]. Kronberg: Scriptor.
Grewendorf, G. (1980). Argumentation in der Sprachwissenschaft [Argumentation in linguistics]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 38(39), 129–151.
Grinsted, A. (1991). Argumentative styles in Spanish and Danish negotiation interaction. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990) (pp. 725–733). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Groupe μ. (1970). Rhétorique générale. [A general rhetoric]. Paris: Éditions Larousse.
Groupe μ. (1981). A general rhetoric (English translation of Rhétorique génerale (1970), Paris: Éditions Larousse). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Groupe μ. (1992). Traité du signe visuel. Pour une rhétorique de l’image [Treatise on the visual sign. Towards a rhetoric of the image]. Paris: Le Seuil.
Gruber, H. (1996). Streitgespräche. Zur Pragmatik einer Diskursform [Arguments. On the pragmatics of a form of discourse]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Guimarães, E. R. J. (1987). Texto e argumentação, semántica do acontecimento e história da semántica [Text and argumentation, semantic of the event and history of semantic]. Campinas: Pontes.
Gulotta, G., & Puddu, L. (2004). La persuasione forense. Strategie e tattiche [Forensic persuasion. Strategies and tactics]. Milan: Giuffrè.
Gunnarsson, M. (2006). Group decision making language and interaction (p. 32). Gothenburg: Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics.
Guseva, O. A. (2006). Ritoriko-argumentativnyje harakteristiki politicheskogo diskursa [Rhetorical-argumentative characteristics of political discourse]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Gutenberg, N. (1984). Hören und Beurteilen [Hearing and judging]. Frankfurt/Main: Scriptor.
Gutenberg, N. (1987). Argumentation and dialectical logic. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 397–403). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Habermas, J. (1971). Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der Kommunikativen Kompetenz [Preliminary remarks on a theory of communicative competence]. In J. Habermas & H. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. Was leistet die Systemforschung? [Theory of society or social technology. What can be gained by system theory?] (pp. 107–141). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1973). Wahrheitstheorien [Theories of truth]. In H. Fahrenbach (Ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion. Festschrift für Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag [Reality and reflection. Festschrift for Walter Schulz in celebration of his 60th birthday] (pp. 211–265). Pfullingen: Günther Neske.
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns [A theory of communicative action], Vols. I, II). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1991). Moral consciousness and communicative action (English transl. of Moralbewusstsein un kommunikatives Handeln, 1983, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation. Special issue Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3).
Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Harris, A. (2011). Argumentation, fallacies and reasoning biases. In B. Kokinov, A. Karmiloff-Smith, & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), European perspectives on cognitive science. Proceedings of the European conference on cognitive science. Sofia: New Bulgarian University Press.
Haidar, J. (2010). La argumentación. Problemática, modelos operativos [Argumentation: problems, operative models]. Documentacion en Ciencias de la Comunicacion ITESO-CONACYT, 1, 67–98.
Hample, D., & Benoit, P. (1999). Must arguments be explicit and violent? A study of naïve social actors’ understandings. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 306–310). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. (1986). The judgment phase of invention. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 225–234). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1987). Cognitive editing of argument strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 123–144.
Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1991). Cognitive editing of arguments and interpersonal construct differentiation. Refining the relationship. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990) (pp. 567–574). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Hample, D., Paglieri, F., & Na, L. (2011). The costs and benefits of arguing. Predicting the decision whether to engage or not. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 718–732). Amsterdam: Rozenberg-Sic Sat. CD rom.
Hannken-Illjes, K. (2006). In the field. The development of reasons in criminal proceedings. Argumentation, 20(3), 309–325.
Hannken-Illjes, K. (2007). Undoing premises. The interrelation of argumentation and narration in criminal proceedings. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 569–573). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Hannken-Illjes, K. (2011). The absence of reasons. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 733–737). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Harada, E. (Ed.). (2011). Pensar, razonar y argumentar [Thinking, reasoning, and arguing]. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Hasanbegović, J. (1988). Perelmanova pravna logika kao nova retorika [Perelman’s legal logic as new rhetoric] (pp. 1–118). Beograd: Biblioteka Izazovi.
Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston.
Hatim, B. (1990). A model of argumentation from Arabic rhetoric. Insights for a theory of text types. Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), 17(1), 47–54.
Hatim, B. (1991). The pragmatics of argumentation in Arabic. The rise and fall of a text type. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 11(2), 189–199.
Hazen, M. D. (1982). Report on the 1980 United States debate tour of Japan. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 5, 9–26.
Hendricks, V. F. (2007). Tal en tanke [Language and thought]. Copenhagen: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.
Hendricks, V. F., Elvang-Gøransson, M., & Pedersen, S. A. (1995). Systems of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Reconstruction and application. Proceedings of the third international conference on argumentation, III (pp. 351–367). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Herbig, A. F. (1992). ‘Sie argumentieren doch scheinheilig!’ Sprach- und sprechwissenschaftliche Aspekte einer Stilistik des Argumentierens [“You are arguing hypocritically!” Linguistic aspects of a stylistics of argumentation]. Bern: Peter Lang.
Herman, T. (2005). L’analyse de l’ethos oratoire [The analysis of oratorical ethos]. In P. Lane (Ed.), Des discours aux texte: Modèles d’analyse [From discourse to text: Models of analysis] (pp. 157–182). Rouen/Le Havre: Presses Universitaires de Rouen et du Havre.
Herman, T. (2008a). Narratio et argumentation [Narration and argumentation]. In E. Danblon (Ed), Argumentation et narration [Argumentation and narration]. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Herman, T. (2008b). Au fil du discours. La rhétorique de Charles de Gaulle (1940–1945) [As the discourse unfolds itself. The rhetoric of Charles de Gaulle (1940–1945)]. Limoges: Lambert Lucas.
Herman, T. (2011). Le courant du Critical Thinking et l’évidence des normes [The Critical Thinking movement and the self-evidence of norms]. A Contrario, 2(16), 41–62.
Hietanen, M. (2002). Profetian är primärt inte för de otrogna. En argumentationsanalys av 1 Kor 14:22b [Prophecy is primarily not for the unbelievers. An argumentation analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:22b]. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, 67, 89–104.
Hietanen, M. (2003). Paul’s argumentation in Galatians 3.6-14. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 477–483). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Hietanen, M. (2007a). Paul’s argumentation in Galatians. A pragma-dialectical analysis. London: T&T Clark.
Hietanen, M. (2007b). Retoriken vid Finlands universitet [Rhetoric in Finnish universities]. Finsk tidskrift, 9–10, 522–536.
Hietanen, M. (2007c). The gospel of Matthew as an argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 607–613). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Hietanen, M. (2010). Suomalainen työläisretoriikka Kaurismäen mukaan – puhe- ja argumentaatiokulttuuri Varjoja paratiisissa [Finnish working-class rhetoric according to Kaurismäki. The culture of argumentation in Shadows in paradise]. Lähikuva, 23(2), 68–82.
Hietanen, M. (2011a). ‘Mull’ on niinku viesti jumalalta’ – Vakuuttamisen strategiat Nokia Missionherätysretoriikassa [“I have like a message from God”. Persuasive strategies in the revival rhetoric of Nokia Missio]. Teologinen aikakauskirja, 116(2), 109–122.
Hietanen, M. (2011b). The gospel of Matthew as a literary argument. Argumentation, 25(1), 63–86.
Hintikka, J. (1989). The role of logic in argumentation. The Monist, 72, 3–24. Reprinted in Hintikka, J. (1999). Inquiry as inquiry. A logic of scientific discovery (Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers, 5; pp. 25–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hintikka, J., & Bachman, J. (1991). What if …? Toward excellence in reasoning. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Hirsch, R. (1987). Interactive argumentation. Ideal and real. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 434–441). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Hirsch, R. (1989). Argumentation, information and interaction. Gothenburg: Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg.
Hirsch, R. (1991). Belief and interactive argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990) (pp. 591–603). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Hirsch, R. (1995). Desiderata for the representation of process and product in face-to-face interactive argumentation. 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 (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), II (pp. 68–78). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Hitchcock, D. L. (2011a). Arguing as trying to show that a target-claim is correct. Theoria, 72, 301–309.
Hoeken, H. (2001). Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence. Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation, 15, 425–437.
Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L. (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35, 491–510.
Hoeken, H., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences. What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 225–416.
Hoffnagel, J. C. (2010). Temas em antropologia e linguística [Topics in anthropology and linguistics]. Recife: Bagaço.
Hołówka, T. (2005). Kultura logiczna w przykładach [Logical culture in examples]. Warsaw: PWN.
Hommerberg, C. (2011). Persuasiveness in the discourse of wine. The rhetoric of Robert Parker. Gothenburg: Linnaeus University Press. Linnaeus University dissertations 71/2011.
Hoppmann, M. (2012). Review of Harald Wohlrapp’s ‘Der Begriff des Arguments’. Argumentation, 26(2), 297–304.
Hornikx, J. M. A. (2005). Cultural differences in persuasiveness of evidence types in France and the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
Hornikx, J., & de Best, J. (2011). Persuasive evidence in India. An investigation of the impact of evidence type and evidence quality. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 246–257.
Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H. (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74(4), 443–463.
Houtlosser, P. (1998). Points of view. Argumentation, 12, 387–405.
Hovhannisian, H. (2006). Yerevan school of argumentation on the threshold of the 21st century. The problem of foundation. News and Views, 12.
Hu, Z. (1995). An evidentialistic analysis of reported argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994) (pp. 102–119). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Huerta, M. (2009). Diagnóstico de las representaciones estudiantiles en textos escritos, construcción del otro en alumnos del Plantel Naucalpan del CCH, propuesta didáctica para abordar el texto argumentativo [Diagnosis of students’ representations in written texts, construction of the Otherness in students of Plantel Naucalpan of CCH. Didactic proposal to analyze the argumentative text]. Doctoral dissertation, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico.
Hultén, P., Hultman, J., & Eriksson, L. T. (2009). Kritiskt tänkande [Critical thinking]. Malmö: Liber.
Ieţcu, I. (2006). Discourse analysis and argumentation theory. Analytical framework and applications. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Ieţcu-Fairclough, I. (2008). Branding and strategic maneuvering in the Romanian presidential election of 2004. A critical discourse-analytical and pragma-dialectical perspective. Journal of Language and Politics, 7(3), 372–390.
Ieţcu-Fairclough, I. (2009). Legitimation and strategic maneuvering in the political field. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 131–151). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ieţcu-Preoteasa, I. (2006). Dialogue, argumentation and ethical perspective in the essays of H.-R. Patapievici. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Ihnen Jory, C. (2012a). Instruments to evaluate pragmatic argumentation. A pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 143–159). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ihnen Jory, C. (2012b). Pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates. Instruments for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation at the second reading of the British parliament. Amsterdam: Sic Sat-Rozenberg. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.
Ihnen [Jory], C., & Richardson, J. E. (2011). On combining pragma-dialectics with critical discourse analysis. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 231–243). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Republished as Ihnen [Jory], C., & Richardson, J. E. (2012). On combining pragma-dialectics with critical discourse analysis. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis. Newbury Park: Sage).
Ilie, C. (1994). What else can I tell you? A pragmatic study of English rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Ilie, C. (1995). The validity of rhetorical questions as arguments in the courtroom. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Special fields and cases. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), IV (pp. 73–88). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Ilie, C. (2007). Argument refutation through definitions and re-definitions. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 667–674). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Ilie, C., & Hellspong, L. (1999). Arguing from clichés. Communication and miscommunication. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 386–391). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Inbar, M. (1999). Argumentation as rule-justified claims. Elements of a conceptual framework for the critical analysis of argument. Argumentation, 13(1), 27–42.
Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L. (2008). Discursive perspective and argumentation in the Romanian parliamentary discourse. A cased study. L’analisi linguistica e letteraria, 16, 435–441.
Ionescu Ruxăndoiu, L. (2010). Straightforward vs. mitigated impoliteness in the Romanian parliamentary discourse. The case of in absentia impoliteness. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique [Romanian Journal of Linguistics], 4, 243–351.
Ishii, D. (1992). Buddhist preaching. The persistent main undercurrent of Japanese traditional rhetorical communication. Communication Quarterly, 40, 391–397.
Itaba, Y. (1995). Reconstructing Japanese rhetorical strategies. A study of foreign-policy discourse during the pre-Perry period, 1783–1853. Twin Cities: University of Minnesota Press.
Iversen, S. M. (2010). Logik og argumentationsteori [Logic and argumentation theory]. Aarhus: Systime.
Ivin, A. (1997). Osnovy teorii argumentatsii [The basics of argumentation theory]. Moscow: Vlados.
Iwashita, M. (1973). The principles of debate. Tokyo: Gakushobo.
Jacquin, J. (2012). L’argumentation de Georges Pompidou face à la crise. Une analyse textuelle des allocutions des 11 et 16 mai 1968 [George Pompidou’s argumentation during the crisis. A textual analysis of the speeches given between 11 and 16 May 1968]. Sahrbrücken: Éditions Universitaires européennes.
Jaśkowski, S. (1948) Rachunek zdań dla systemów dedukcyjnych sprzecznych [Propositional calculus for contradictory deductive systems]. Studia Societatis Scientiarum Torunensis, Sect. A. 1, 5, 57–77. [English trans. in Studia Logica, 24 (1969), pp. 143–160].
Jelvez, L. (2008). Esquemas argumentativos en textos escritos. Un estudio descriptivo en alumnos de tercero medio de dos establecimientos de Valparaíso [Argumentative schemes in written texts. A descriptive study of third-grade pupils of two schools in Valparaíso]. Cyber Humanitatis 45. http://www.cyberhumanitatis.uchile.cl/index.php/RCH/rt/printerFriendly/5951/5818
Johannesson, K. (1990). Retorik – eller konsten att övertyga [Rhetoric – or the art of persuasion]. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Johansen, A., & Kjeldsen, J. E. (2005). Virksomme ord. Politiske taler 1814–2005 [Working word. Political speeches 1814–2005]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Jørgensen, C. (1995). Hostility in public debate. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Special fields and cases. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), III (pp. 363–373). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Jørgensen, C. (2003). The Mytilene debate. A paradigm for deliberative rhetoric. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 567–570). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Jørgensen, C. (2007). The relevance of intention in argumentation. Argumentation, 21(2), 165–174.
Jørgensen, C. (2009). Interpreting Perelman’s universal audience. Gross versus Crosswhite. Argumentation, 23(1), 11–19.
Jørgensen, C. (2011). Fudging speech acts in political argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 906–913). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Jørgensen, C., & Kock, C. (1999). The rhetorical audience in public debate and the strategies of vote-gathering and vote-shifting. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 420–423). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Jørgensen, C., Kock, C., & Rørbach, L. (1994). Retorik der flytter stemmer. Hvordan man overbeviser I offentlig debat [Rhetoric that shifts votes. How to persuade in public debates]. Ödåkra: Retorikforlaget. 2nd ed., 2011.
Jørgensen, C., Kock, C., & Rørbach, L. (1998). Rhetoric that shifts votes. An exploratory study of persuasion in issue-oriented public debates. Political Communication, 15(3), 283–299.
Jovičič, T. (2003a). Evaluation of argumentative strategies. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 571–580). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Jovičič, T. (2003b). New concepts for argument evaluation. In J. A. Blair, D. Farr, H. V. Hansen, R. H. Johnson, & C. W. Tindale (Eds.), Informal logic @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Ju, S. (2010). The cultural relativity of logic. Social sciences in China, 31(4), 73–89.
Just, S. (2003). Rhetorical criticism of the debate on the future of the European Union. Strategic options and foundational understandings. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 581–586). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Juthe, A. (2005). Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19(1), 1–27.
Juthe, A. (2009). Refutation by parallel argument. Argumentation, 23(2), 133–169.
Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L. (1993). Dialectic and enquiry in Aristotle., Helsinki School of Econmics, Helsinki.
Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L. (Ed.), (1998). Argumentti ja kritiikki. Lukemisen, keskustelun ja vakuuttamisen taidot [Argument and critique. The skills of reading, discussing and persuading]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. 7th ed., 2007.
Kalashnikova, S. (2007). Lingvisticheskiye aspekty stiley myshleniya v argumentativnom diskurse [Linguistic aspects of thinking styles in argumentative discourse]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Kamiński, S. (1962). Systematyzacja typowych błędów logicznych [A classification of typical logical fallacies]. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 10(1), 5–39.
Kanke, T. (2007). Reshaping Emperor Hirohito’s persona. A study of fragmented arguments in multiple texts. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 733–738). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kanke, T., & Morooka, J. (2011). Youth debates in early modern Japan. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 914–926). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Kasyanova, J. (2008). Strukturno-semanticheskij analiz argumentatsii v monologicheskom diskurse [A structural-semantic analysis of argumentation in a monological discourse]. Doctoral dissertation, Udmurt State University, Izhevsk.
Kennedy, G. (1999). Classical rhetoric & its Christian and secular tradition. From ancient to modern times (2 revised enlargedth ed.). Chapel Hill/London: The University of North Carolina Press.
Kertész, A., & Rákosi, C. (2009). Cyclic vs. circular argumentation in the conceptual metaphor theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 703–732.
Kienpointner, M. (1991). Argumentation in Germany and Austria. An overview of the recent literature. Informal Logic, 8(3), 129–136.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion vom Argumentationsmustern [Everyday logic. Structure and function of argumentative patterns]. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Kienpointner, M. (1993). The empirical relevance of Ch. Perelman’s new rhetoric. Argumentation, 7(4), 419–437.
Kienpointner, M. (1996). Whorf and Wittgenstein. Language, world view and argumentation. Argumentation, 10(4), 475–494.
Kindt, W. (1988). Zur Logik von Alltagsargumentationen [On the logic of everyday argumentation]. Fachbericht 3 Erziehungswissenschaftliche Hochschule Koblenz. Koblenz: Hochschule Koblenz.
Kindt, W. (1992a). Organisationsformen des Argumentierens in natürlicher Sprache [The organisation of argumentation in everyday speech]. In H. Paschen & L. Wigger (Eds.), Pädagogisches Argumentieren [Educational argumentation] (pp. 95–120). Weinheim: Deutscher Studienverlag.
Kindt, W. (1992b). Argumentation und Konfliktaustragung in Äusserungen über den Golfkrieg [Argumentation and conflict resolution in statements on the Gulf War]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 11, 189–215.
Kiseliova, V.V. (2006). Varyirovaniye verbalnyh reaktsij v argumentativnom diskurse [Variability of verbal reactions in argumentative discourse]. Doctoral dissertation, Udmurt State University, Izhevsk.
Kišiček, G., & Stanković, D. (2011). Analysis of fallacies in Croatian parliamentary debate. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 939–948). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (1999a). Visual rhetoric. From elocutio to inventio. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 455–463). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (1999b). Retorik i Norge. Et retorisk øy-rike [Rhetoric in Norway. A rhetorical island-kingdom]. Rhetorica Scandinavica, 12, 63–72.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2002). Visual rhetoric. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bergen, Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2007). Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising. A cognitive, contextual, and reception oriented approach. Argumentation & Advocacy, 42(3/4), 124–132.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2011a). Visual argumentation in an Al Gore keynote presentation on climate change. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation. Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1–11). Windsor, ON. CD rom.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2011b). Visual tropes and figures as visual argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kjeldsen, J. E., & Grue, J. (2011). The study of rhetoric in the Scandinavian countries. In J. E. Kjeldsen & J. Grue (Eds.), Scandinavian studies in rhetoric (pp. 7–39). Ödåkra: Retorikförlaget.
Klein, J. (1987). Die konklusiven Sprechhandlungen. Studien zur Pragmatik, Semantik, Syntax und Lexik von Begründen, Erklären-warum, Folgern und Rechtfertigen [Conclusive speech acts. Studies of the pragmatic, semantic, syntactic and lexical aspects of supporting, explaining why, concluding, and justifying]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Kline, S. L. (1995). Influence opportunities and persuasive argument practices in childhood. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (pp. 261–275). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Klopf, D. (1973). Winning debate. Tokyo: Gakushobo.
Kluev, E. (1999). Ritorika. Inventsiya, dispozitsiya, elocutsiya [Rhetoric. Invention, disposition, elocution]. Moscow: Prior.
Klujeff, M. L. (2008). Retoriske figurer og stil som argumentation [Rhetorical figures and style as argumentation]. Rhetorica Scandinavica, 45, 25–48.
Koch, I. G. V. (1984). Argumentação e linguagem [Argumentation and language]. São Paulo: Cortez.
Kock, C. (2003). Gravity too is relative: On the logic of deliberative debate. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 628–632). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kock, C. (2007a). Is practical reasoning presumptive? Informal Logic, 27, 91–108.
Kock, C. (2007b). Norms of legitimate dissensus. Informal Logic, 27(2), 179–196.
Kock, C. (2007c). The domain of rhetorical argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 785–788). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kock, C. (2009a). Arguing from different types of speech acts. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures. Proceedings of the 8th OSSA conference at the University of Windsor in 2009. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. CD rom.
Kock, C. (2009b). Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation, 23(1), 61–80.
Kolflaath, E. (2004). Språk og argumentasjon – med eksempler fra juss [Language and argumentation – with examples from law]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Komlósi, L. I. (1990). The power and fallability of a paradigm in argumentation. A case study of subversive political discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (pp. 994–1005). Amsterdam: Sic Sat-ISSA.
Komlósi, L. I. (1997). Inferential pragmatics and cognitive structures. Situated language use and cognitive linguistics. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Komlósi, L. I. (2003). The conceptual fabric of argumentation and blended mental spaces. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck-Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 632–635). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Komlósi, L. I. (2006). Rhetorical effects of entrenched argumentation and presumptive arguments. A four-handed piece for George W. Bush and Tony Blair. In F. H. van Eemeren, M. D. Hazen, P. Houtlosser, & D. C. Williams (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on argumentation. Views from the Venice argumentation conference (pp. 239–257). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Komlósi, L. I. (2007). Perelman’s vision. Argumentation schemes as examples of generic conceptualization in everyday reasoning practices. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 789–796). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Komlósi, L. I. (2008). From paradoxes to presumptive fallacies. The way we reason with counter-factual mental spaces. In J. Andor, B. Hollósy, T. Laczkó, & P. Pelyvás (Eds.), When grammar minds language and literature (pp. 285–292). Debrecen: Debrecen University Press.
Komlósi, L. I., & Knipf, E. (1987). Negotiating consensus in discourse interaction schemata. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Perspectives and approaches (pp. 82–89). Dordrecht: Foris.
Komlósi, L. I., & Tarrósy, I. (2010). Presumptive arguments turned into a fallacy of presumptuousness. Pre-election debates in a democracy of promises. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 957–972.
Konishi, T. (2007). Conceptualizing and evaluating dissociation from an informal logical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 797–802). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1975). Pro und Contra im Fernsehen [Pro and contra on television]. Der Deutschunterricht, 27, 42–62.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1976a). Allgemeine Rhetorik. Einführung in die Theorie der persuasiven Kommunikation [General rhetoric. Introduction to the theory of persuasive communication]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1976b). Methode statt Appell. Versuch einer Argumentationsanalyse [Method instead of appeal. An attempt at argument analysis]. Der Deutschunterricht, 28, 37–58.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1977). Von der Kritik der Rhetorik zur kritischen Rhetorik [From criticism of rhetoric to a critical rhetoric]. In H. F. Plett (Ed.), Rhetorik. Kritische Positionen zum Stand der Forschung [Rhetoric. A critical survey of the state of the art] (pp. 213–29). München: Fink.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1978). Das Prinzip vernünftiger Rede [Principles of rational speech]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1980). Argumentation [Argumentation]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1987). The function of argumentation. A pragmatic approach. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 179–188). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1989a). Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse [Methodology of argumentation analysis]. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1989b). Öffentliche Rede in Deutschland [Public speaking in Germany]. Muttersprache, 99, 213–230.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1990). Gibt es Kriterien politischer Rhetorik? Versuch einer Antwort [Do criteria for political rhetoric exist? A tentative answer]. Diskussion Deutsch, 115, 479–501.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1995). Grundfragen einer allgemeinen Argumentationstheorie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung formaler Argumentationsmuster [Fundamental questions for a general theory of argumentation arising from an analysis of formal patterns of argumentation]. In H. Wohlrapp (Ed.), Wege der Argumentationsforschung [Roads of argumentation research] (pp. 50–73). Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Kopperschmidt, J. (Ed.), (1990). Rhetorik, 1. Rhetorik als Texttheorie [Rhetoric, 1. Rhetoric as a theory of text]. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.
Kopperschmidt, J. (Ed.), (1991). Rhetorik, 2. Wirkungsgeschichte der Rhetorik [Rhetoric, 2. A history of effective rhetoric]. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.
Kopperschmidt, J. (Ed.), (2006) Die neue Rhetorik. Studien zu Chaim Perelman [The new rhetoric. Studies on Chaim Perelman]. Paderborn/München: Fink.
Korolko, M. (1990). Sztuka retoryki [The art of rhetoric]. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna.
Korta, K., & Garmendia, J. (Eds.). (2008). Meaning, intentions and argumentation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Koszowy, M. (2004). Methodological ideas of the Lvov-Warsaw School as a possible foundation for a fallacy theory. In T. Suzuki, Y. Yano, & T. Kato (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Tokyo conference on argumentation and social cognition (pp. 125–130). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.
Koszowy, M. (2011). Pragmatic logic. The study of argumentation in the Lvov-Warsaw School. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1010–1022). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Koszowy, M. (2013). The methodological approach to argument evaluation. Rules of defining as applied to assessing arguments. Filozofia nauki, 1(81), 23–36.
Kraus, M. (2006). Arguing by question. A Toulminian reading of Cicero’s account of the enthymeme. In D. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 313–325). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kraus, M. (2007). From figure to argument. Contrarium in Roman rhetoric. Argumentation, 21(1), 3–19.
Kraus, M. (2012). Cultural diversity, cognitive breaks, and deep disagreement. Polemic argument. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kurki, L., & Tomperi, T. (2011). Väittely opetusmenetelmänä – Kriittinen ajattelu, argumentaatio ja retoriikka käytännössä [Debate as a teaching method. Critical thinking, argumentation and rhetorics in practice]. Tampere: Niin &Näin/Eurooppalaisen filosofian seura.
Kusch, M., & Schröder, H. (Eds.). (1989). Text – Interpretation – Argumentation. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Kutrovátz, G. (2008). Rhetoric of science, pragma-dialectics, and science studies. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 231–247). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kutrovátz, G. (2010). Trust in experts. Contextual patterns of warranted epistemic dependence. Balkan Journal of Philosophy, 1, 57–68.
Kvernbekk, T. (2003a). Narratives as informal arguments. In J. A. Blair, D. Farr, H. V. Hansen, R. H. Johnson, & C. W. Tindale (Eds.), Informal logic @ 25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Kvernbekk, T. (2003b). On the argumentative quality of explanatory narratives. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 651–657). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kvernbekk, T. (2007a). Argumentation practice. The very idea. In J. A. Blair, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), OSSA proceedings 2007. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. CD rom.
Kvernbekk, T. (2007b). Theory and practice. A metatheoretical contribution. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 841–846). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kvernbekk, T. (2009). Theory and practice. Gap or equilibrium. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures. Proceedings of the 8th OSSA conference at the University of Windsor in 2009. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. CD rom.
Kvernbekk, T. (2011). Evidence-based practice and Toulmin. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation. Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). Windsor, ON. CD rom.
Lanzadera, M., García, F., Montes, S., & Valadés, J. (2007). Argumentación y razonar. Cómo enseñar y evaluar la capacidad de argumentar [Argumentation and reasoning. How to teach and evaluate the argumentative capacity]. Madrid: CCS.
Lausberg, H. (1969). Elementi di retorica [Elements of rhetoric]. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Leal Carretero, F., Ramírez González, C. F., & Favila Vega, V. M. (Eds.), (2010). Introducción a la teoría de la argumentación [Introduction to argumentation Theory]. Guadalajara: Editorial Universtaria.
Leeten, L. (2011). Moral argumentation from a rhetorical point of view. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1071–1075). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 6, 332–360.
Lessl, T. M. (2008). Scientific demarcation and metascience. The National Academy of Sciences on greenhouse warming and evolution. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 77–91). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lewiński, M. (2010a). Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(2), 86–105.
Lewiński, M. (2010b). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Lewiński, M. (2013). Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation. Sides, positions, and cases. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 151–177.
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2013). Argumentation in political deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 1–9.
Liang, Q., & Xie, Y. (2011). How critical is the dialectical tier? Exploring the critical dimension in the dialectical tier. Argumentation, 25(2), 229–242.
Lichański, J. Z. (1992). Retoryka od średniowiecza do baroku. Teoria i praktyka [Rhetoric from medival times to baroque. Theory and practice]. Warsaw: PWN.
Lima, H. M. R. (2011). L’argumentation à la Cour d’Assises brésilienne. Les émotions dans le genre du rapport de police [Argumentation at the Brazilian trial court. Emotions in the genre of police report]. Argumentation et analyse du discours, 7, 57–79.
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2001). Are question-begging arguments necessarily unreasonable? Philosophical Studies, 104, 123–141.
Lisanyuk, E. (2008). Ad hominem in legal discourse. In T. Suzuki, T. Kato, & A. Kubota (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo conference on argumentation. Argumentation, law and justice (pp. 175–181). Tokyo: Japanese Debate Association.
Lisanyuk, E. (2009). Silnykh argumentov net [There are no ad baculum arguments]. In V. Briushinkin (Ed.), Modelling Reasoning, 3 (pp. 92–100). Kaliningrad: Baltic Federal University Press.
Lisanyuk, E. (2010). Pravila i oshibki argumentacii. [Argumentation. Rules and fallacies]. In A. Migounov, I. Mikirtoumov, & B. Fedorov (Eds.), Logic (pp. 588–658). Moscow: Prospect Publishers.
Lisanyuk, E. (2011). Formal’naya dialektika i ritorika [Formal dialectics and rhetoric]. In V. Briushinkin (Ed.), Modelling reasoning, 4. Argumentation and rhetoric (pp. 37–52). Kaliningrad: Baltic Federal University Press.
Lisanyuk, E. (2013). Cognitivnye kharakteristiki agentov argumentacii [Argumentation and Cognitive Agents]. Vestnik SPBGU, 6, 1. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press.
Livnat, Z. (2014). Negotiating scientific ethos in academic controversy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 3(2).
López, C. (2007). The rules of critical discussion and the development of critical thinking. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 901–907). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
López, C., & Vicuña, A. M. (2011). Improving the teaching of argumentation through pragma-dialectical rules and a community of inquiry. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1130–1140). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
López de la Vieja, M. T. (2010). La pendiente resbaladiza [The slipery slope]. Madrid: Plaza y Valdés Editores.
Łoziński, P. (2011). An algorithm for incremental argumentation analysis in Carneades. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 23(36), 155–171.
Łoziński, P. (2012), Wnioskowanie w logikach argumentacyjnych zależne od kontekstu [Context-dependent reasoning in argumentative logics]. Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Computer Science, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw.
Lumer, C. (1990). Praktische Argumentationstheorie. Theoretische Grundlagen, praktische Begründung un Regeln wichtiger Argumentationsarten [A practical theory of argumentation. Theoretical foundations and practical justifications, and rules for major types of argument]. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Lumer, C. (1991). Structure and function of argumentation – An epistemological approach to determining criteria for the validity and adequacy of argumentations. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990 (pp. 89–107). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Lumer, C. (2005). The epistemological theory of argument-how and why? Informal Logic, 25(3), 214–232.
Lumer, C. (2011). Probabilistic arguments in the epistemological approach to argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1141–1154). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Lundquist, L. (1980). La cohérence textuelle. Syntaxe, sémantique, pragmatique [Textual coherence. Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics]. Copenhagen: Arnold Busck, Nyt Nordisk Forlag.
Lundquist, L. (1983). L’analyse textuelle. Méthode, exercises [Textual analysis. Methods, exercises]. Paris: CEDIC.
Lundquist, L. (1987). Towards a procedural analysis of argumentative operators in texts. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 61–69). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Lumer, C. (1991). Structure and function of argumentation – An epistemological approach to determining criteria for the validity and adequacy of argumentations. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990 (pp. 89–107). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Łuszczewska-Romahnowa, S. (1966). Pewne pojęcie poprawnej inferencji i pragmatyczne pojęcie wynikania [A notion of valid inference and a pragmatic notion of entailment]. In T. Pawłowski (Ed.), Logiczna teoria nauki [Logical theory of science] (pp. 163–167). Warsaw: PWN.
Lüken, G.-L. (1991). Incommensurability, rules of argumentation, and anticipation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990 (pp. 244–252). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Lüken, G.-L. (1992). Inkommensurabilität als Problem rationalen Argumentierens [Incommensurability as a problem of rational argumentation]. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Lüken, G.-L. (1995). Konsens, Widerstreit und Entscheidung. Überlegungen anlässlich Lyotards Herausforderung der Argumentationstheorie [Consensus, dissent, and decision. Thoughts on Lyotard’s challenge to argumentation theory]. In H. Wohlrapp (Ed.), Wege der Argumentationsforschung [Roads of argumentation research] (pp. 358–385). Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Lüttich, E. W. B. (2007). (Pseudo-) argumentation in TV-debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1360–1370.
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2010). Dichotomies and oppositions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris, 23(2), 229–257.
Machamer, P., Pera, M., & Baltas, A. (Eds.). (2000). Scientific controversies. Philosophical and historical perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maillat, D., & Oswald, S. (2009). Defining manipulative discourse. The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 348–370.
Maillat, D., & Oswald, S. (2011). Constraining context. A pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. In C. Hart (Ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition (pp. 65–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Maingueneau, D. (1994). Argumentation et analyse du discours. L’exemple des Provinciales [Argumentation and discourse analysis. The example of the Provinciales]. L’Année Sociologique, 3(44), 263–280.
Maingueneau, D. (1996). Ethos et argumentation philosophique. Le cas du Discours de la methode [Ethos and philosophical argumentation. The case of the Discours de la methode]. In: F. Cossutta (Ed.), Descartes et l’argumentation philosophique [Descartes and philosophical argumentation] (pp. 85–110). Paris: PUF.
Manfrida, G. (2003). La narrazione psicoterapeutica. Invenzione, persuasione e tecniche retoriche in terapia relazionale [Psychotherapeutic narration. Invention, persuasion and rhetorical techniques in relation therapy] (2nd ed.). Milan: Franco Angeli. (1st ed. 1998).
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory. Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.
Manzin, M. (2012a). A rhetorical approach to legal reasoning. The Italian experience of CERMEG. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts (pp. 135–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manzin, M. (2012b). Vérité et logos dans la perspective de la rhétorique judiciaire. Contributions perelmaniennes à la culture juridique du troisième millénaire [Truth and logos from the perspective of legal rhetoric. Perelmanian contributions to the legal culture of the third millenium]. In B. Frydman & M. Meyer (Eds.), Chaïm Perelman. De la nouvelle rhétorique à la logique juridique [Chaïm Perelman. From new rhetoric to legal logic] (pp. 261–288). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Manzin, M., & Puppo, F. (Eds.), (2008). Audiatur et altera pars. Il contraddittorio fra principioe regola [Hear the other side too. The crossexamination between principle and rule]. Milano: Giuffrè.
Marafioti, R. (2003). Los patrones de la argumentación [The patterns of argumentation]. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
Marafioti, R. (2007). Argumentation in debate. The parliamentary speech in critical contexts. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 929–932). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Marafioti, R., Dumm, Z., & Bitonte, M. E. (2007). Argumentation and counter-argumentation using a diaphonic appropriation in a parliamentary debate. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 933–937). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Marafioti, R., Pérez de Medina, E., & Balmayor, E. (Eds.), (1997). Recorridos semiológicos. Signos, enunciación y argumentación [Semiological paths. Signs, enunciation and argumentation]. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Marciszewski, W. (1969). Sztuka dyskutowania [The art of discussing]. Warsaw: Iskry.
Marga, A. (1992). Introducere în metodologia şi argumentarea filosofică [An introduction to philosophical methodology and argumentation]. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia.
Marga, A. (2009). Raţionalitate, comunicare, argumentare [Rationality, communication, argumentation] (2nd enlarged and revised ed.). Cluj-Napoca: Editura Grinta.
Marga, A. (2010). Argumentarea [Argumentation]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
Margitay, T. (2004). Az érvelés mestersége [The art of reasoning]. Budapest: Typotex.
Marinkovich, J. (2000). Un intento de evaluar el conocimiento acerca de la escritura en estudiantes de enseñanza básica [An attempt to evaluate the knowledge about writing among primary school students]. Revista Signos, 33(47), 101–110.
Marinkovich, J. (2007). La interacción argumentativa en el aula. Fases de la argumentación y estrategias de cortesía verbal [Argumentative interaction in the classroom. Stages of argumentation and verbal courtesy strategies]. In C. Santibáñez & B. Riffo (Eds.), Estudios en argumentación y retórica. Teorías contemporáneas y aplicaciones [Studies in argumentation and rhetoric. Contemporary theories and applications] (pp. 227–252). Concepción: Editorial Universidad de Concepción.
Marques, C. M. (2010). A argumentação oral formal em contexto escolar [The formal oral argumentation in school context]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Coimbra, Coimbra.
Marques, M. A. (2007a). Discordar no parlamento. Estratégias de argumentação [Disagreement in parliament: argumentation strategies]. Revista Galega de Filoloxía, 8, 99–124.
Marques, M. A. (2007b). Narrativa e discurso político: Estratégias argumentativas [Narrative and political discourse: Argumentative strategies]. In A. G. Macedo & E. Keating (Eds.), O poder das narrativas, as narrativas do poder: Actas dos Colóquios de Outono 2005–2006 [The power of narratives, the narratives of power: Proceedings of the 2005–2006 Autumn Colloquium] (pp. 303–316). Braga: Universidade do Minho.
Marques, M. A. (2011). Argumentação e(m) discursos [Argumentation in/and discourse(s)]. In I. Duarte & O. Figueiredo (Eds.), Português, língua e ensino [Portuguese, language and teaching] (pp. 267–310). Porto: Porto Editorial.
Marras, C., & Euli, E. (2008). A ‘dialectic ladder’ of refutation and dissuasion. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 135–147). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Marraud, H. (2013). ¿Es lógic@? Análisis y evaluación de argumentos [Is it logic(al)? Analysis and evaluation of arguments]. Madrid: Cátedra.
Martel, G. (2008). Performance…et contre-performance communicationelles. Des stratégies argumentatives pour le débat politique télévisé [Communicational performance and counter-performance. Argumentative strategies in political television debate]. Argumentation et analyse du discours, 1 [on line] http://www.revues.org/index2422.html
Martínez Solis, M. C. (2005). La construcción del proceso argumentativo en el discurso [The construction of the argumentative process in discourse]. Cali: Artes gráficas, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad del Valle.
Martínez Solis, M. C. (2006). Las dimensiones del sujeto discursivo. Prácticas en Módulos 1, 2 y 3 del curso virtual para el desarrollo de estrategias de comprensión y producción de textos [The dimensions of the discursive subject. Practices in modules 1, 2 and 3 of the virtual course for the development of comprehension strategies and text production]. Cali: Education for All section of www.unesco-lectura.univalle.edu.co, Universidad del Valle.
Martínez Solis, M. C. (2007). La orientación social de la argumentación en el discurso. Una propuesta integrativa [The social orientation of argumentation in discourse. An integrative approach]. In R. Marafioti (Ed.), Parlamentos. Teoría de la argumentación y debate parlamentario [Parliaments. Argumentation theory and parliamentary debate]. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
Marttunen, M. (1995). Practicing argumentation through computer conferencing. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Reconstruction and application. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24), III (pp. 337–340). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Marttunen, M. (1997). Studying argumentation in higher education by electronic mail. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research. Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.
Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (1999). Learning of argumentation in face-to-face and e-mail environments. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 552–558). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2007). Collaborative learning through chat discussions and argument diagrams in secondary school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 109–126.
Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., Hunya, M., & Litosseliti, L. (2003). Argumentation skills of secondary school students in Finland, Hungary and the United Kingdom. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 733–739). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Maslennikova, A. A., & Tretyakova, T. P. (2003). The rhetorical shift in interviews. New features in Russian political discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 741–745). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Matlon, R. J. (1978). Report on the Japanese debate tour, May and June 1978. JEFA Forensic Journal, 2, 25–40.
Mavrodieva, I. (2010). Виртуална реторика. От дневниците до социалните мрежи [Virtual rhetoric. From the diary to the social web]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Mazilu, S. (2010). Dissociation and persuasive definitions as argumentative strategies in ethical argumentation on abortion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest, Bucharest.
Mazzi, D. (2007a). The construction of argumentation in judicial texts. Combining a genre and a corpus perspective. Argumentation, 21(1), 21–38.
Mazzi, D. (2007b). The linguistic study of judicial argumentation. Theoretical perspectives, analytical insights. Modena: Il Fiorino.
Melin, L. (2003). Manipulera med språket [Manipulate with speech]. Stockholm: Nordstedts ordbok.
Melo Souza Filho, O. (2011). From polemical exchanges to dialogue. Appreciations about an ethics of communication. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 1248–1258). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Memedi, V. (2007). Resolving deep disagreement: A case in point. SEEU Review, 3(2), 7–18.
Memedi, V. (2011). Intractable disputes. The development of attractors. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1259–1265). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Mengel, P. (1991). The peculiar inferential force of analogical arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (Organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990) (pp. 422–428). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Mengel, P. (1995). Analogien als Argumente [Analogies as arguments]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Mercier, H. (2011). Looking for arguments. Argumentation, 26(3), 305–324.
Mercier, H. (2012). Some clarifications about the argumentative theory of reasoning. A reply to Santibáñez Yáñez (2012). Informal Logic, 32(2), 259–268.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.
Meyer, M. (1976). De la problématologie. Philosophie, science et langage [Of problematology. Philosophy, science, and language]. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.
Meyer, M. (1982a). Logique, langage et argumentation [Logic, language, and argumentation]. Paris: Hachette. (English transl. 1995).
Meyer, M. (1982b). Argumentation in the light of a theory of questioning. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 15(2), 81–103.
Meyer, M. (1986b). From logic to rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [trans. of M. Meyer (1982a). Logique, langage et argumentation. Paris: Hachette].
Meyer, M. (1988). The rhetorical foundation of philosophical argumentation. Argumentation, 2(2), 255–270. [trans. of M. Meyer (1982a). Argumentation in the light of a theory of questioning. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 15(2), 81–103].
Meyer, M. (1995). Of problematology: Philosophy, science and language. London: Bloomsbury. [trans. of M. Meyer (1976). De la problématologie. Philsophy, Science et langage. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga].
Meyer, M. (2000). Questionnement et historicité [Questioning and historicity]. Paris: Puf.
Meyer, M. (2008). Principia rhetorica. Une théorie générale de l’argumentation. [Principia Rhetorica. A general theory of argumentation]. Paris: Fayard.
Meza, P. (2009). Las interacciones argumentativas orales en la sala de clases. Un análisis dialéctico y retórico [Oral argumentative interactions in the classroom. A dialectic and rhetorical analysis]. Doctoral dissertation, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.
Micheli, R. (2010). L’émotion argumentée. L’abolition de la peine de mort dans le débat parlementaire français [Well-argued emotion. The abolition of the death penalty in French parliamentary debate]. Paris: Le Cerf.
Micheli, R. (2012). Arguing without trying to persuade? Elements for a non-persuasive definition of argumentation. Argumentation, 26(1), 115–126.
Migunov, A. I. (2002). Analitika i dialektika. Dva aspekta logiki [Analytics and dialectics: two aspects of logic]. In Y. A. Slinin and us: To the 70th anniversary of Professor Yaroslav Anatolyevich Slinin. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press/Philosophical Society Publication.
Migunov, A. I. (2004). Teoriia argumentatcii kak logiko-pragmaticheskoe issledovanie argumentativnoi’ kommunikatcii [Theory of argumentation as logical-pragmatic research of argumentative communication]. In S. I. Dudnik (Ed.), Communication and education. The collection of articles. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press.
Migunov, A. I. (2005). Kommunikativnaia priroda istiny i argumentatciia [Communicative nature of truth and argumentation. Logical-philosophical studies, 3. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press.
Migunov, A. I. (2007a). Entimema v argumentativnom diskurse [Enthymeme in an argumentative discourse]. In Logical-philosophical studies, 4. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press/Philosophical Society Publication.
Migunov, A. I. (2007b). Semantika argumentativnogo rechevogo akta [Semantics of the argumentative speech act]. In Thought. The yearbook of the Petersburg Philosophical Society, 6. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press.
Migunov, A. I. (2009). Argumentologiia v kontekste prakticheskogo povorota logiki [Argumentology in a context of the practical turn of logic]. Logical-philosophical studies, 7. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press.
Migunov, A. I. (2011). Sootnoshenie ritoricheskikh i argumentativnykh aspektov diskursa [A relationship of discourse rhetorical and argumentative aspects]. In V. I. Bryushinkin (Ed.), Models of reasoning, 4. Argumentation and rhetoric. Kaliningrad: Kaliningrad University Press.
Miovska-Spaseva, S., & Ačkovska-Leškovska, E. (2010). Критичкото мислење во универзитетската настава [Critical thinking in university education]. Skopje: Foundation Open Society Institute - Macedonia.
Miranda, T. (1998). El juego de la argumentación [The game of argumentation]. Madrid: Ediciones de la Torre.
Miranda, T. (2002). Argumentos [Arguments]. Alcoy: Editorial Marfil.
Moeschler, J. (1985). Argumentation et conversation [Argumentation and conversation]. Paris: Hatier.
Mohammed, D. (2011). Strategic manoeuvring in simultaneous discussions. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation. Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21, 2011. Windsor, ON. CD rom.
Mohammed, D. (2013). Pursuing multiple goals in European parliamentary debates. EU immigration policies as a case in point. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 47–74.
Monteiro, C. S. (2006). Teoria da argumentação jurídica e nova retórica. [Theory of legal argumentation and new rhetoric] (3rd ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris.
Monzón, L. (2011). Argumentación. Objeto olvidado para la investigación en México [Argumentation. The forgotten object in Mexican research]. REDIE, 13(2), 41–54.
Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2009). Critical thinking (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Chinese transl. 2007).
Morrison, J. L. (1972). The absence of a rhetorical tradition in Japanese culture. Western Speech, 36, 89–102.
Mosca, L. L. S. (Ed.), (2006). Discurso, argumentação e produção de sentido [Discourse, argumentation and making sense] (4th ed). São Paulo: Associação Editorial Humanitas.
Mral, B., Borg, N., & Salazar, P.-J. (Eds.). (2009). Women’s rhetoric. Argumentative strategies of women in public life. Åstorp: Retoriksförlaget. Sweden & South Africa.
Muraru D. (2010). Mediation and diplomatic discourse. The strategic use of dissociation and definitions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest, Bucharest.
Naqqari, H. (Ed.), (2006). Al-Taḥājuj. Tabīʻatuh wa Majālātuh wa Waẓāʼifuh [Argumentation. Its nature, contexts and functions]. Rabat: Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Mohammed V University.
Navarro, M. G. (2009). Interpretar y Argumentar [Interpreting and arguing]. Madrid: Plaza y Valdes Editores.
Navarro, M. G. (2011). Elements for an argumentative method of interpretation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1347–1356). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Nettel, A. N. (2011). The enthymeme between persuasion and argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1359–1365). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Nettel, A. N., & Roque, G. (2012). Persuasive argumentation versus manipulation. Argumentation, 26(1), 55–69.
Nielsen, F. S. (1997). Alfred Sidgwicks argumentationsteori [Alfred Sidgwick’s argumentation theory]. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums forlag.
Nikolić, D., & Tomić, D. (2011). Employing the Toulmin model in rhetorical education. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1366–1380). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Noemi, C. (2011). Intertextualidad a partir del establecimiento de status. Alcances sobre la relación entre contenido y superestructura en los discursos de juicios orales [Intertextuality from status. Notes about the relationship between content and superstructure in oral trial discourses]. Signos, 44(76), 118–131.
Novani, S. (2011a). Thought experiments in criminal trial. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1782748 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1782748
Novani, S. (2011b). The testimonial argumentation. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1785266 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1785266.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and persuasion effects research. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 235–243). Mahwah/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Öhlschläger, G. (1979). Linguistische Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der Argumentation [Linguistic arguments for a theory of argumentation]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Okabe, R. (1986–1988). Research conducted by grant of the Japanese Government [An analysis of the influence of Western rhetorical theory on the early Meiji era speech textbooks in Japan]. http://kaken.nii.ac.jp/d/r/40065462.ja.html
Okabe, R. (1989). Cultural assumptions of East and West. Japan and the United States. In J. L. Golden, G. F. Berquist, & W. E. Coleman (Eds.), The rhetoric of Western thought (4th ed., pp. 546–565). Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Okabe, R. (1990). The impact of Western rhetoric on the east. The case of Japan. Rhetorica, 8(4), 371–388.
Okabe, R. (2002). Japan’s attempted enactments of Western debate practice in the 16th and the 19th centuries. In R. T. Donahue (Ed.), Exploring Japaneseness. On Japanese enactments of culture and consciousness (pp. 277–291). Westport/London: Ablex.
Okuda, H. (2007). Prime Minister Mori’s controversial “Divine Nation” remarks. A case study of Japanese political communication strategies. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1003–1009). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Okuda, H. (2011). Obama’s rhetorical strategy in presenting “A world without nuclear weapons. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1396–1404). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Olmos, P., & Vega, L. (2011). The use of the script concept in argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1405–1414). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Omari, M. el (1986). Fī Balāghat al-Khiṭāb al-Iqnā’ī. Madkhal Naẓarī wa Taṭbīqī Li Dirāsat a-Khiṭābah al-‘Arabīyah: al-Khiṭābah fī al-Qarn al-Awwal Namūdhajan [The rhetoric of argumentative discourse. A preface to the theoretical and applied study of Arabic oration. Oration in the first Hijra Century as an example]. Rabat: Dār al-Thaqāfah. (2nd ed., 2002. Casablanca: Ifrīqiya-al-Sharq).
Orlandi, E. (2000). Análise do discurso. Princípios e procedimentos [Discourse analysis. Principles and procedures]. Campinas: Pontes.
Orlandi, E., & Lagazzi-Rodrigues, S. (2006). Discurso e textualidade [Discourse and textuality]. Campinas: Pontes.
Ortega de Hocevar, S. (2003). Los niños y los cuentos. La renarración como actividad de comprensión y producción discursiva [Children and tales. Renarration as an activity for discoursive comprehension and production]. In Niños, cuentos y palabras. Colección 0 a 5. La educación en los primeros años. [Children, tales and words. 0 to 5 Series. Education in the first years]. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Novedades Educativas.
Ortega de Hocevar, S. (2008). In M. Castilla (Ed.), ¿Cómo determinar la competencia argumentativa de alumnos del primer ciclo de la Educación básica? [How to determine argumentative competence in primary school students?]. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.
Oshchepkova, N. (2004). Strategii i taktiki v argumentativnom diskurse. Pragmalingvisticheskij analiz ubeditelnosti rassuzhdeniya [Strategies and tactics in argumentative discourse. A pragmalinguistic analysis of the persuasiveness of reasoning]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Osorio, J. (2006). Estructura conceptual metafórica y práctica argumentativa [Metaphorical conceptual structure and argumentative practice]. Praxis, 8(9), 121–136.
Oswald, S. (2007). Towards an interface between pragma-dialectics and relevance theory. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(1), 179–201.
Oswald, S. (2010). Pragmatics of uncooperative and manipulative communication. Doctoral dissertation, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Oswald, S. (2011). From interpretation to consent. Arguments, beliefs and meaning. Discourse Studies, 13(6), 806–814.
Paavola, S. (2006). On the origin of ideas. An abductivist approach to discovery. Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki, 15. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
Padilla, C. (1997). Lectura y escritura. Adquisición y proyecciones pedagógicas [Reading and writing. Acquisition and pedagogical projections]. San Miguel de Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.
Padilla, C., & López, E. (2011). Grados de complejidad argumentativa en escritos de estudiantes universitarios de humanidades [Degrees of argumentative complexity in written texts of humanities college students]. Revista Praxis, 13(20), 61–90.
Paiva, C. G. (2004). Discurso parlamentar. Bases para elaboração ou como é que se começa? [Parliamentary discourse. Basis for the elaboration, or how we start it?]. Brasília: Aslegis.
Pajunen, J. (2011). Acceptance. Epistemic concepts, and argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1428–1437). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Palczewski, C. (1989). Parallels between Japanese and American debate. A paper presented at the Central States Communication Association Annual Conference in Kansas City, Missouri.
Palczewski, C. H., Fritch, J., & Parrish, N. C. (Eds.), (2012). Forum: Argument scholars respond to Mercier and Sperber’s argumentative theory of human reason. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(3).
Parodi, G. (2000). La evaluación de la producción de textos escritos argumentativos. Una alternancia cognitivo/discursiva [The evaluation of written argumentative texts production. A cognitive/discoursive alternation). Revista Signos, 33(47), 151–16.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking. Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River: Financial Times Press. (Chinese transl. 2010).
Pedersen, S. H. (2011). Reasonable non-agreement in discussions. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1486–1495). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Peón, M. (2004). Habilidades argumentativas de alumnos de primaria y su fortalecimiento [Argumentative skills and their reinforcement in primary school students]. Doctoral dissertation, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico.
Pera, M. (1991). Scienza e retorica [Science and rhetoric]. Bari: Laterza.
Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science (Trans. of Scienza e retorica. Bari: Laterza, 1991). Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Perdue, D. E. (1992). Debate in Tibetan Buddhism. New York: Snow Lion Publications.
Pereda, C. (1992a). Razón e incertidumbre [Reason and Uncertainty]. México: Siglo XXI.
Pereda, C. (1992b). Vértigos argumentales. Una ética de la disputa [Argumentative Vertigos. An ethics of dispute]. Barcelona: Anthropos.
Perelman, C. (1968). Recherches interdisciplinairs sur l’argumentation [Interdisciplinary research on argumentation]. Logique et analyse, 11(44), 502–511.
Perelman, C. (1969). Le champ de l’argumentation [The field of argumentation]. Brussels: Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles.
Perelman, C. (1974). Perspectives rhétoriques sur les problemes sémantiques [Rhetorical perspectives on semantic problems]. Logique et analyse, 17(67–68), 241–252.
Perelman, C. (1977). L’empire rhétorique. Rhétorique et argumentation [The realm of rhetoric. Rhetoric and argumentation]. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin. (trans. into Portuguese (1992), Spanish (1997)).
Perelman, C. (1979b). The new rhetoric and the humanities. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Perelman, C. (1992). O império retórico. Retórica e argumentação, 1992. Porto: Asa. [trans.: Grácio, R. A. & Trindade, F. of C. Perelman (1977). L’empire rhétorique. Rhétorique et argumentation. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin].
Perelman, C. (1997). El imperio retórico. Retórica y argumentación. Bogota: Norma. [trans.: Gómez, A. L. of C. Perelman (1977). L’empire rhétorique. Rhétorique et argumentation. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin].
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation [The new rhetoric. Treatise on argumentation]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (3rd ed. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles). [trans. into Italian (1966), English (1969), Portuguese (1996), Rumanian (2012), Spanish (1989)].
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1966). Trattato dell'argomentazione. La nuova retorica. Turin: Einaudi. [trans. of C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (3rd ed. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles)].
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. [trans.: Wilkinson, J. & and Weaver, P. of C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (3rd ed. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles)].
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1989). Tratado de la argumentación. La nueva retórica. Madrid: Gredos. [trans.: Sevilla, J. of C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (3rd ed. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles)].
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1996). Tratado da argumentação. A nova retórica. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. [trans.: Pereira, M. E. G. G. of C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (3rd ed. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles)].
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2012). Tratat de argumentare. Noua Retorică. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”. [trans.: Stoica, A. of C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (3rd ed. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles)].
Pery-Borissov, V., & Yanoshevsky, G. (2011). How authors justify their participation in literary interviews. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1504–1514). Amsterdam: Rozenberg-Sic Sat. CD rom.
Piazza, F. (2004). Linguaggio, persuasione e verità. La retorica del Novecento [Language, persuasion and truth. The rhetoric of the twentieth century]. Rome: Carocci.
Piazza, F. (2008). La retorica di Aristotele. Introduzione alla lettura. [The rhetoric of Aristotle. An introduction]. Rome: Carocci.
Pietarinen, J. (Ed.), (1992). Problems of argumentation, I & II. Turku: Reports from the Department of Practical Philosophy, 5.
Pineda, O. (2004). Propuesta metodológica para la enseñanza de la redacción de textos argumentativos. Revisión del programa de taller de lectura y redacción II del Colegio de Bachilleres [A methodological proposal for teaching argumentative texts writing skills. A revision of the program of the workshop on reading and writing II of Colegio de Bachilleres]. Doctoral dissertation, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico.
Pinto, R. (2006). Argumentação em géneros persuasivos – um estudo contrastivo [Argumentation in persuasive genres – a contrastive study]. Lisbon: Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Doctoral dissertation New University of Lisbon.
Pinto, R. (2010). Como argumentar e persuadir? Prática política, jurídica, jornalistica [How to argue and persuade? Political, legal and journalistic practice]. Lisbon: Quid Juris.
Pinto, R. C. (2011). The account of warrants in Bermejo-Luque’s Giving reasons. Theoria, 72, 311–320.
Plantin, C. (2005). L’argumentation. Histoire, théories, perspectives [Argumentation. History, theories, perspectives]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (trans. into Portuguese (2008)).
Plantin, C. (2008). A argumentação. História, teorias, perspectivas L’argumentation. São Paulo: Parábola. [trans.: by Marcionilo, M. of C. Plantin (2005). L’argumentation. Histoire, théories, perspectives. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France].
Poblete, C. (2003). Relación entre competencia textual argumentativa y metacognición [The relationship between textual argumentative competence and metacognition]. Doctoral dissertation, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.
Polya, G. (1968). Mathematics and plausible reasoning, 2. Patterns of plausible inference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Posada, P. (2010). Argumentación, teoría y práctica. Manual introductorio a las teorías de la argumentación [Argumentation, theory and practice. Introductory handbook of argumentation theories]. (2nd ed.). Cali: Programa Editorial Univalle.
Povarnin, S. I. (1923). Iskusstvo spora. O teorii i praktike spora [The art of argument. On the theory and practice of arguing]. Petrograd: Nachatki znanii.
Prakken, H. (2013). Argumentación jurídica, derrotabilidad e Inteligencia artificial [Legal argumentation, defeasibility and artificial intelligence]. Santiago: Universidad Diego Portales.
Prian, J. (2007). Didáctica de la argumentación. Su enseñanza en la Escuela Nacional Preparatoria [Argumentation didactics. Its teaching in the Escuela Nacional Preparatoria]. Doctoral dissertation, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico.
Puchkova, A. (2011). Rechevoj zhanr ‘kantseliarskaya otpiska’. Lingvo-argumentativnyj analiz [The speech genre ‘bureaucratic runaround’. A linguo-argumentative analysis]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Puckova, Y. V. (2006). Argumentativno-lingvisticheskij analiz diskursa oproverzhenij [An argumentative-linguistic analysis of refutation discourse]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Puig, L. (2012). Doxa and persuasion in lexis. Argumentation, 26(1), 127–142.
Quintrileo, C. (2007). Análisis como reconstrucción en la discusión parlamentaria. Una aproximación desde el enfoque de la pragma-dialéctica [Analysis as reconstruction in parliamentarian discussion. An approach from the pragma-dialectical perspective]. In C. Santibáñez & B. Riffo (Eds.), Estudios en argumentación y retórica. Teorías contemporáneas y aplicaciones [Studies in argumentation and rhetoric. Contemporary theories and applications] (pp. 253–272.). Concepción: Editorial Universidad de Concepción.
Raccah, P-Y. (2006). Polyphonie et argumentation. Des discours à la langue (et retour) [Polyphony and argumentation. From discourse to language (and back)]. In Z. Simonffy (Ed.), L’un et le multiple [The one and the multiple] (pp. 120–152). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Raccah, P.-Y. (2011). Racines lexicales de l’argumentation [The lexical roots of argumentation]. Verbum, 32(1), 119–141.
Radeva, V. (2000). Реторика [Rhetoric]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Radeva, V. (2006). Реторика и аргументация [Rhetoric and argumentation]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Radi, R. al (2010). Al-Ḥijāj wa Almughālatah. Min al-Ḥiwār Fī AlʻAkl ilā AlʻAkl fī al-Ḥiwār [From dialogue to reason to reason in dialogue]. Beirut: Dar al-Kitāb al-jadīd.
Reboul, O. (1988). Can there be non-rhetorical argumentation? Philosophy & Rhetoric, 21, 220–223.
Reboul, O. (1990). Rhétorique et dialectique chez Aristote [Aristotle’s views on rhetoric and dialectic]. Argumentation, 4, 35–52.
Reboul, O. (1991). Introduction à la rhétorique. Théorie et pratique [Introduction to rhetoric. Theory and practice]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria. Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 13(4), 961–980.
Regner, A. C. (2007). The polemical interaction between Darwin and Mivart. A lesson on refuting objections. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1119–1126). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Regner, A. C. (2008). The polemical interaction between Darwin and Mivart. A lesson on refuting objection. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 51–75). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Regner, A. C. (2009). Charles Darwin versus George impart. The role of polemic in science. In F. H. van Eemeren & G. Bart (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 51–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Regner, A. C. (2011). Three kinds of polemical interaction. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 1646–1657). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Rehbein, J. (1995). Zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter in argumentativer Rede [Composite anaphora in argumentative speech]. In H. Wohlrapp (Ed.), Wege der Argumentationsforschung [Roads of argumentation research] (pp. 166–197). Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Reidhav, D. (2007). Reasoning by analogy. A study on analogy-based arguments in law. Lund: Lund University.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination. Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). London: Sage. (1st ed. 2001).
Renko, T. (1995). Argument as a scientific notion. Problems of interpretation and identification. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Reconstruction and application. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994, III (pp. 177–182). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Reygadas, P. (2005). El arte de argumentar [The art of arguing]. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México.
Reygadas, P., & Guzman, J. (2007). Visual schematization. Advertising and gender in Mexico. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1135–1139). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Ribak, R. (1995). Divisive and consensual constructions in the political discourse of Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Dilemmas and constructions. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Special fields. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), IV (pp. 205–215). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Ribeiro, H. J. (2013). Aristotle and contemporary argumentation theory. Argumentation, 27(1), 1–6.
Ribeiro, H. J. (Ed.). (2009). Rhetoric and argumentation in the beginning of the XXIst century. Coimbra: Coimbra University Press.
Ribeiro, H. J. (Ed.). (2012). Inside arguments. Logic and the study of argumentation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ribeiro, H. J., & Vicente, J. N. (2010). O lugar da lógica e da argumentation no ensino filosofia [The place of logic and argumentation in the teaching of philosophy]. Coimbra: Unidade de I&D LIF.
Ritola, J. (1999). Wilson on circular arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 705–708). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Ritola, J. (2003). On reasonable question-begging arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 913–917). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Ritola, J. (2004). Begging the question. A study of a fallacy. Turku: Paino-Salama.Reports from the Department of Philosophy, 13. Doctoral dissertation University of Turku.
Ritola, J. (2007). Irresolvable conflicts and begging the question. In J. A. Blair, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), OSSA proceedings 2007. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. CD rom.
Ritola, J. (2009). Two accounts of begging the question. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures. Proceedings of the 8th OSSA conference at the University of Windsor in 2009. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. CD rom.
Ritola, J. (Ed.), (2012). Tutkimuksia argumentaatiosta [Studies on argumentation]. Turku: Paino-Salama. Reports from the Department of Philosophy, 24.
Rivano, E. (1999). De la argumentación [On argumentation]. Santiago: Bravo y Allende Editores.
Rivano, J. (1984). El modelo de Toulmin [The Toulmin model]. Manuscript.
Rodrigues, S. G. C. (2010). Questões de dialogismo. O discurso científico, o eu e os outros [Questions of dialogue. The scientific discourse, the I and the others]. Recife: Editora Universitária da UFPE.
Roesler, C. (2004). Theodor Viehweg e a ciência do direito [Theodor Viehweg and legal science]. Florianópolis: Momento Atual.
Roesler, C., & Senra, L. (2012). Lei de anistia e justiça de transição. A releitura da ADPF 153 sob o viés argumentativo e principiológico [Amnesty law and transitional justice. Re-reading the ADPF 153 from an argumentative and principiological point of view]. Seqüência, 64, 131–160.
Roesler, C., & Tavares da Silva, P. (2012). Argumentação jurídica e direito antitruste. Analise de casos [Legal argumentation and antitrust law. Analysis of cases]. Revista Jurídica da Presidência da Republica, 14(102), 13–43.
Rogers, K. (2009). Tibetan logic. New York: Snow Lion Publications.
Rolf, B., & Magnusson, C. (2003). Developing the art of argumentation. A software approach. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 919–925). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Roque, G. (2008). Political rhetoric in visual images. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric (pp. 185–193). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Roque, G. (2010). What is visual in visual argumentation? In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures. Proceedings of the 8th OSSA conference at the University of Windsor in 2009. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. CD rom.
Roque, G. (2011a). Rhétorique visuelle et argumentation visuelle [Visual rhetoric and visual argumentation]. Semen, 32, 91–106.
Roque, G. (2011b). Visual argumentation. A reappraisal. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1720–1734). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Roulet, E. (1989). De la structure de la conversation à la structure d’autres types de discours [From the structure of conversation to the structure of other types of discourse]. In C. Rubattel (Ed.), Modèles du discours. Recherches actuelles en Suisse romande (pp. 35–60). Bern: Peter Lang.
Roulet, E. (1999). La description de l’organisation du discours [The description of the organization of discourse]. Paris: Didier.
Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Moeschler, J., Rubattel, C., & Schelling, M. (1985). L’articulation du discours en français contemporain [The organization of discourse in contemporary French]. Bern: Peter Lang.
Roulet, E., Filliettaz, L., Grobet, A., & Burger M. (2001). Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse du discours [A model and an instrument for the analysis of discourse]. Bern: Peter Lang.
Rozhdestvensky, Y. (2000). Prinzipy sovremennoy ritoriki [The principles of modern rhetoric]. Moscow: Flinta, Nauka.
Ruan, S. (1991–1992a). Lectures on informal logic. (1) The rise of informal logic. Logic and Language Learning, 10(4), 9–11.
Ruan, S. (1991–1992b). Lectures on informal logic. (2) The evaluation of argument. Logic and Language Learning, 10(5), 7–10.
Ruan, S. (1991–1992c). Lectures on informal logic. (3) Presupposition. Cooperative principle and implicit premises. Logic and Language Learning, 10(6), 9–10.
Ruan, S. (1991–1992d). Lectures on informal logic. (4) Informal fallacies. Logic and Language Learning, 11(3), 8–11.
Ruan, S. (1991–1992e). Lectures on informal logic. (5) Constructing argument. Logic and Language Learning, 11(5), 7–9.
Rubinelli, S. (2009). Ars topica. The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rubinelli, S., Nakamoto, K., & Schulz, P. J. (2008). The rabbit in the hat. Dubious argumentation and the persuasive effects of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines. Communication and Medicine, 5(1), 49–58.
Rubinelli, S., & Zanini, C. (2012). Using argumentation theory to identify the challenges of shared decision-making when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. Journal of Public Health Research, 2(1), e26.
Ruchkina, Y. (2009). Linvo-argumentativnyye osobennosti strategij vezhlivosti v rechevom konflikte [Linguo-argumentative peculiarities of politeness in speech conflict]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Rudanko, J. (2009). Reinstating and defining ad socordiam as an informal fallacy. A case study from a political debate in the early American republic. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures. Proceedings of the 8th OSSA conference at the University of Windsor in 2009. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. CD rom.
Saim, M. (2008). Reforming the Jews, rejecting marginalization. The 1799 German debate on Jewish emancipation in its controversy context. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 93–108). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sajama, S. (2012). Mikä on oikeudellisen argumentaation ja tulkinnan ero? [What is the difference between judicial argumentation and interpretation?]. In R. Ritola (Ed.), Tutkimuksia argumentaatiosta [Studies on argumentation] (pp. 83–97). Turku: Paino-Salama. Reports from the Department of Philosophy, 24.
Sălăvăstru, C. (2003). Teoria şi practica argumentării [Theory and practice of argumentation]. Iaşi: Polirom.
Salminen, T., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2003). Grounding and counter-argumentation during face-to-face and synchronous network debates in secondary school. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 933–936). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Salminen, T., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2010). Visualising knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 379–391.
Salminen, T., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2012). Argumentation in secondary school students’ structured and unstructured chat discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(2), 175–208.
Saltykova, Y. A. (2011). Funktsionirovaniye inoskazatelnyh frazeologicheskih yedinits v argumentativnom diskurse [Functioning of allegorical phrasal units in argumentative discourse]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Sammoud, H. (Ed.), (1999). Ahamm Nathariyyāt al-Ḥijāj fī Attaqālīd al-Gharbiyya min Aristu ilā al-Yawm [The main theories of argumentation in the Western tradition from Aristotle until today]. Tunis: Manouba University.
Sanders, J. A., Gass, R. H., &Wiseman, R. L. (1991). The influence of type of warrant and receivers’ ethnicity on perceptions of warrant strength. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 1990), 1B (pp. 709–718). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Sandig, B., & Püschel, U. (Eds.), (1992). Stilistik, III. Argumentationsstile. Germanistische Linguistik [Stylistics, III. Styles of argumentation. German linguistics]. Hildesheim: Olms.
Sandvik, M. (1995). Methodological implications of the integration of pragma-dialectics and conversation analysis in the study of interactive argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Reconstruction and application. Proceedings of the third international conference on argumentation, III (pp. 455–467). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Sandvik, M. (1999). Criteria for winning and losing a political debate. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 715–719). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Sandvik, M. (2007). The rhetoric of emotions in political argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1223–1226). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Santibáñez, C. (2010a). Retórica, dialéctica o pragmática? A 50 años de Los usos de la argumentación de Stephen Toulmin [Rhetoric, dialectics or pragmatics? 50 years of The uses of argument of Stephen Toulmin]. Revista Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 42, 91–125.
Santibáñez, C. (2010b). La presunción como acto de habla en la argumentación [Presumption as speech act in argumentation]. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada RLA, 48(1), 133–152.
Santibáñez, C. (2010c). Metaphors and argumentation. The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 973–989.
Santibáñez, C. (2012a). Mercier and Sperber’s argumentative theory of reasoning. From the psychology of reasoning to argumentation studies. Informal Logic, 32(1), 132–159.
Santibáñez, C. (2012b). Relevancia, cooperación e intención [Relevance, cooperation and intention]. Onomazein. Revista de Lingüística y Filología, 25, 181–204.
Santibáñez, C. (2012c). Teoría de la argumentación como epistemología aplicada [Argumentation theory as applied epistemology]. Cinta de Moebio, 43, 24–39.
Santos, C. M. M., Mafaldo, M. P., & Marreiros, A. C. (2003). Dealing with alternative views: The case of the Big Bad Wolf and the three little pigs. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 937–941). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
de Saussure, L. (2010). L’étrange cas de puis en usages discursifs et argumentatifs [The strange case of ‘puis’ [next, moreover] in discursive and argumentative uses]. In C. Vetters & E. Moline (Eds.), Temps, aspect et modalité en français (pp. 261–275). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
de Saussure, L., & Oswald, S. (2009). Argumentation et engagement du locuteur. Pour un point de vue subjectiviste [Argumentation and speaker’s commitment. Towards a subjectivist point of view]. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 29, 215–243.
Schank, G., & Schwittala, J. (1987). Konflikte in Gesprächen [Conflicts in conversation]. Tübingen: Narr.
Schanze, H. (Ed.), (1974). Rhetorik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte in Deutschland vom 16.–20. Jahrhundert [Rhetoric. Contribution to its history in Germany from the 16th to the 20th century]. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Fischer.
Schellens, P. J. (1985). Redelijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers [Reasonable arguments. Developing norms for critical readers]. Dordrecht: Foris.
Schellens, P. J. (1991). De argumenten ad verecundiam en ad hominem. Aanvaardbare drogredenen? [The ad verecundiam and the ad hominem argument. Acceptable fallacies?]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 13, 134–144.
Schellens, P. J., & de Jong, M. (2004). Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation, 18, 295–323.
Schellens, P. J., & Verhoeven, G. (1988). Argument en tegenargument. Een inleiding in de analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten [Argument and counterargument. An introduction to the analysis and evaluation of argumentative texts]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Schreier, M. N., Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (1995). That’s not fair! Argumentative integrity as an ethics of argumentative communication. Argumentation, 9(2), 267–289.
Schulz, P. J., & Rubinelli, S. (2008). Arguing ‘for’ the patient. Informed consent and strategic maneuvering in doctor-patient interaction. Argumentation, 22(3), 423–432.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right… If they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256.
Schwed, M. (2003). “I see your point” – On visual arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 949–951). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Schwed, M. (2005). On the philosophical preconditions for visual arguments. In D. Hitchcock (Ed.), The uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 403–412). Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Schwitalla, J. (1987). Common argumentation and group identity. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 119–126). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Scripnic, G. (2011). Strategic manoeuvring with direct evidential strategies. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1789–1798). Amsterdam: Rozenberg-Sic Sat.
Scripnic, G. (2012a). Communication, argumentation et médiativité. Aspects de l’évidentialité en français et en roumain [Communication, argumentation, and evidentiality. Aspects of evidentiality in French and Romanian]. Cluj-Napoca: Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă.
Scripnic, G. (2012b). Médiativité, mirativité et ajustement stratégique [Evidentiality, mirativity, and strategic maneuvering]. In G. Hassler (Ed.), Locutions et phrases. Aspects de la prédication [Phrases and sentences. Aspects of predication] (pp. 108–116). Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
Seara, I. R. (2010a). L’épistolaire de condoléances. Une rhétorique de la consolation [The epistolary art of condolences. A rhetoric of comfort]. In L.-S. Florea, C. Papahagi, L. Pop, & A. Curea (Eds.), Directions actuelles en linguistique du texte. Actes du colloque international ‘Le texte: modèles, méthodes, perspectives’, II ([Current trends in text linguistics. Proceedings of the international colloquium ‘The text: models, methods, perspectives, II] pp. 213–222). Cluj-Napoca: Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă.
Seara, I. R. (2010b). Le blog. Frontières d’un nouveau genre [The blog. Borders of a new genre]. In Actes du XXVe Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes (Innsbruck, 3–8 septembre 2007)) [Proceedings of the XXVth international conference on romance linguistics and philology (Innsbruck, September 3–8, 2007)] (pp. 243–252). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Seara, I. R., & Pinto, R. (2011). Communication and argumentation in the public sphere. Discursul specializat – teorie și practică, 5(1), 56–66.
Segre, C. (1985). Avviamento all’analisi del testo letterario [Introduction to the analysis of literary texts]. Torino: Einaudi.
Selinger, M. (2005). Dwa pojęcia prawdy w świetle logiki i erystyki [Two notions of truth in logic and eristics]. In B. Sierocka (Ed.), Aspekty kompetencji komunikacyjnej [The aspects of communicative competence]. Wrocław: Atut.
Selinger, M. (2010). Ogólna forma argumentu [General form of argument]. In W. Suchoń, I. Trzcieniecka-Schneider & D. Kowalski (Eds.), Argumentacja i racjonalna zmiana przekonań [Argumentation and the rational change of beliefs] (pp. 101–117). DiaLogikon, XV. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.
Selinger, M. (2012). Formalna ocena argumentacji [Formal evaluation of arguments]. Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria, 1(81), 89–109.
Sentenberg, I. V. & Karasic, V. I. (1993). Psevdoargumentatsia. Nekotorye vidy rechevykh manipulyatsii [Pseudo-argumentation. Some types of speech manipulations]. Journal of Speech Communication and Argumentation, 1 (pp. 30–39). St. Petersburg: Ecopolis and Culture.
Seppänen, M. (2007). The quality of argumentation in masters theses. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1257–1264). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Serra, J. P. (2009). Persuasão e propaganda. Os limites da retórica na sociedade mediatizada [Persuasion and propaganda. The limits of rhetoric in the mediatised society]. Comunicação e sociedade, 16, 85–100.
Shi, X. (1995). Beyond argument and explanation. Analyzing practical orientations of reasoned discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), I (pp. 16–29). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Shi, X., & Kienpointner, M. (2001). The reproduction of culture through argumentative discourse. Studying the contested nature of Hong Kong in the international media. Pragmatics, 11(3), 285–307.
Sigrell, A. (1995). The persuasive effect of implicit arguments in discourse. 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 (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994, II (pp. 151–157). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Sigrell, A. (1999). Att övertyga mellan raderna. En retorisk studie om underförståddheter i modern politisk argumentation [To convince between the lines. A rhetorical study of the implicit in modern political argumentation]. Åstiro: Rhetor förlag. Doctoral dissertation University of Umeå. (2nd ed. 2001).
Sigrell, A. (2003). Progymnasmata, pragmadialectics and pedagogy. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 965–968). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Sigrell, A. (2007). The normativity of the progymnasmata exercises. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1285–1289). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Siitonen, A., & Halonen, I. (1997). Ajattelu ja argumentointi [Thinking and argumentation]. Porvoo Helsinki Juva: WSOY.
Silva, J. V. (2004). Comunicação, lógica e retórica forenses [Communication, logic and forensic rhetoric]. Porto: Unicepe.
da Silva, V. A. (2007). Legal argumentation, constitutional interpretation, and presumption of constitutionality. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1291–1294). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
da Silva, V. A. (2009). O STF e o controle de constitucionalidade. Deliberação, diálogo e razão pública [The Supreme Federal Court and judicial review. Deliberation, dialogue and public reason]. Revista de Direito Administrativo, 250, 197–227.
da Silva, V. A. (2011). Comparing the incommensurable. Constitutional principles, balancing and rational decision. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31, 273–301.
Simonffy, Z. (2010). Vue. De la sémantique à la pragmatique et retour. Pour une approche argumentative des rapports entre langue et culture. From semantics to pragmatics and back. [Towards an argumentative approach of the relationships between language and culture]. Saarbrücken: Éditions universitaires européennes.
Simpson, P. (1993). Langage, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.
Sivilov, L. (1981). Споровете за предмета на диалектическата логика [The disputes on the subject of dialectical logic]. Filosofska misal, 1, 30–43.
Sivilov, L. (1993). Новата реторика (Програма за обучението по реторика) [The new rhetoric (training program in rhetoric)]. Philosophy, 3, 55–58.
Škarić, I. (2011). Argumentacija [Argumentation]. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus.
Skouen, T. (2009). Passion and persuasion. John Dryden’s The hind and the panther (1687). Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Skulska, J. (2013). Schematy argumentacji Douglasa Waltona w świetle toposów w retoryce Arystotelesa [Walton’s argumentation schemes and topoi in Aristotelian rhetoric]. Doctoral dissertation, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Warsaw.
Smirnova, A. V. (2007). Why do journalists quote other people, or on the functions of reported speech in argumentative newspaper discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1305–1307). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Sorm, E., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2007). Determining laymen criteria. Evaluating methods. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1321–1328). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Souza, W. E. de, & Machado, I. L. (Eds.), (2008). Análise do discurso. Ethos, emoções, ethos e argumentação [Discourse analysis. Ethos, emotions and argumentation]. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
Spassov, D. (1980). Символна логика [Symbolic logic]. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo.
Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations. A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 117–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. (2001). An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical Topics, 29, 401–413.
Spranzi, M. (2004a). Le “Dialogue sur les deux grands systèmes du monde” de Galilée. Dialectique, rhétorique et démonstration [The “Dialogue concerning the two Chief world systems” of Galileo. Dialectics, rhetoric, and demonstration]. Paris: PUF.
Spranzi, M. (2004b). Galileo and the mountains of the moon. Analogical reasoning, models and metaphors in scientific discovery. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 451–484.
Spranzi, M. (2011). The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric. The Aristotelian tradition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stati, S. (2002). Principi di analisi argomentativa. Retorica, logica, linguistica [Principles of argumentation analysis. Rhetoric, logic, linguistics]. Bologna: Pàtron.
Stcherbatsky, F. T. (2011a). Buddhist logic, I. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing. (original ed. published in 1930).
Stcherbatsky, F. T. (2011b). Buddist logic, II. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing. (original ed. published in 1930).
Stefanov, V. (2001). Доказателство и аргументация [Evidence and argumentation]. Philosophy, 2, 22–29.
Stefanov, V. (2003). Логика [Logic]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Stefanova, N. (2012). Реторическа аргументация в италианския политически дебат от края на ХХ век [Rhetorical argumentation in the Italian political debate since the end of the twentieth century. The transition from first to second Italian republic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sofia, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Rhetoric, Sofia.
Strecker, B. (1976). Beweisen. Eine praktisch-semantische Untersuchung [Prove. A practical-semantic examination]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Suchoń, W. (2005). Prolegomena do retoryki logicznej [Prolegomena to logical rhetoric]. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.
Sukhareva, O. (2010). Zapadnaya ritoricheskaya traditsiya i problema ubeditelnosti monologa [Western rhetorical tradition and the problem of monologue persuasiveness]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Suzuki, M., Hasumi, J., Yano, Y., & Sakai, K. (2011). Adaptation to adjudication styles in debates and debate education. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1841–1848). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Suzuki, T. (1989). Japanese debating activities. A comparison with American debating activities and a rationale for the improvement. An MA thesis submitted to the Graduate School and Department of Communication Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Suzuki, T. (2001). The cardinal principles of the national entity of Japan. A rhetoric of ideological pronouncement. Argumentation, 15, 251–266.
Suzuki, T. (2007). A fantasy theme analysis of Prime Minister Koizumi’s “Structural reform without sacred cows. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1345–1351). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Suzuki, T. (2008). Japanese argumentation. Vocabulary and culture. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45, 49–53.
Suzuki, T. (2012). Why do humans reason sometimes and avoid doing it other times? Kotodama in Japanese culture. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48, 178–180.
Suzuki, T., & van Eemeren, F. H. (2004). “This painful chapter”. An analysis of Emperor Akihito’s apologia in the context of Dutch old sores. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41, 102–111.
Suzuki, T., & Kato, T. (2011). An analysis of tv debate. Democratic Party of Japan leadership between Hatoyama and Okada. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1849–1859). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. CD rom.
Suzuki, T., & Matsumoto, S. (2002). English-language debate as business communication training in Japan. In J. E. Rogers (Ed.), Transforming debate. The best of the International Journal of Forensics (pp. 51–70). New York-Amsterdam-Brussels: International Debate Education Association.
Szymanek, K. (2001). Sztuka argumentacji. Słownik terminologiczny [The art of argument. A terminological dictionary]. Warsaw: PWN.
Szymanek, K. (2009). Argument z podobieństwa [Argument by similarity (analogy)]. Katowice: University of Silesia Press.
Szymanek, K., Wieczorek, K., & Wójcik, A. S. (2004). Sztuka argumentacji. Ćwiczenia w badaniu argumentów [The art of argument. Exercises in argument analysis]. Warsaw: PWN.
Tarnay, L. (1982). A game-theoretical analysis of riddles. Studia Poetica, 4, 99–169.
Tarnay, L. (1986). On dialogue games, argumentation, and literature. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on argumentation, 3B. Argumentation. Analysis and practice (pp. 209–216). Dordrecht: Foris.
Tarnay, L. (1990). Az irodalmi interpretáció argumentatív szerkezete [The argumentative structure of literary interpretation]. Studia poetica, 9, 67–86.
Tarnay, L. (1991). On vagueness, truth, and argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990) (pp. 506–514). Dordrecht: Foris.
Tarnay, L. (2003). On visual argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1001–1006). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Tarski, A. (1995). Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive sciences. New York: Dover Publications.
Tchouechov, V. (1993). Teoretiko-istoricheskie osnovania argumentologii [Theoretical historical foundations of argumentology]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Press.
Tchouechov, V. (1999). Totalitarian argumentation. Theory and practice. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 784–785). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Tchouechov, V. (2011). Argumentology about the possibility of dialogue between new logic, rhetoric, dialectics. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1860–1869). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Thurén, L. (1995). Argument and theology in 1 Peter. The origins of Christian paraenesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1985). Argumentative text structure and translation (p. 18). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1987). Argumentation in English and Finnish editorials. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 373–378). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Tokarz, M. (1987). Persuasion. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 16, 46–49.
Tokarz, M. (1993). Elementy pragmatyki logicznej [Elements of logical pragmatics]. Warsaw: PWN.
Tokarz, M. (2006). Argumentacja. Perswazja. Manipulacja [Argumentation. Persuasion. Manipulation]. Gdańsk/Warsaw: Gdańskie Towarzystwo Psychologiczne/PWN.
Tomasi, S. (2011). Adversarial principle and argumentation. An outline of Italian criminal trial. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1870–1879). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Tomic T. (2002). Authority-based argumentative strategies. Three models for their evaluation. Uppsala University, Doctoral dissertation Uppsala UniversityUppsala
Tomic, T. (2007a). Communicative freedom and evaluation of argumentative strategies. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1365–1372). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Tomic, T. (2007b). Information seeking processes in evaluating argumentation. In J. A. Blair, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), OSSA proceedings 2007. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. CD rom.
Torkki, J. (2006). Puhevalta. Kuinka kuulijat vakuutetaan [Power of speech. How the listener is convinced]. Helsinki: Otava.
Toshev, A. (1901). Ръководство по риторика и красноречие [Guide of rhetoric and eloquence]. Plovdiv: Hr. G. Danov.
Toulmin, S. E. (2001a). Os usos do argumento. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. [trans.: Guarany, R. of S. E. Toulmin (1958), The uses of argument (1st ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Updated ed. 2003)].
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958).
Tuominen, M. (2001). Ancient philosophers on the principles of knowledge and argumentation. Reports from the Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki, 2.
Tuţescu, M. (1986). L’argumentation [Argumentation]. Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Tuţescu, M. (1998). L’argumentation. Introduction à l’étude du discours [Argumentation. Introduction into the study of discourse]. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Urbieta, L., & Carrascal, B. (2007). Circular arguments analysis. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1395–1400). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Üding, G., & Jens, W. (Eds.), (1992). Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, 1 [Historical dictionary of rhetoric, 1]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Üding, G., & Jens, W. (Eds.), (1994). Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, 2 [Historical dictionary of rhetoric, 2]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Vaisilyev, L. G. (2007). Understanding argument. The sign nature of argumentative functions. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1407–1409). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Valenzuela, R. (2009). Retórica. Un ensayo sobre tres dimensiones de la argumentación [Rhetoric. An essay concerning three dimensions of argumentation]. Santiago: Editorial Jurídica de Chile.
Valesio, P. (1980). Novantiqua. Rhetorics as a contemporary theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (trans. into Chinese (in preparation), Italian (2014), Japanese (in preparation), & Spanish (2013)].
van Eemeren, F. H. (2013b). Maniobras estratégicas en el discurso argumentativo. Extendiendo la teoría pragma-dialéctica de la argumentación. Madrid-Mexico: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC)/Plaza & Valdés. [trans.: Santibáñez Yáñez, C. & Molina, M. E. of F. H. van Eemeren (2010), Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins].
van Eemeren, F. H. (2014). Mosse e strategie tra retorica e argomentazione. Naples: Loffredo. [trans.: Bigi, S. & Gilardoni, A. of F. H. van Eemeren (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (Eds.). (2008). Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris & Berlin: de Gruyter. [trans. into Russian (1994c), Spanish (2013)].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1991b). [Chinese title]. Beijing: Peking University Press. [trans.: Xu-Shi of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (trans. into Bulgarian (2009), Chinese (1991b), French (1996), Romanian (2010), Russian (1992b), Spanish (2007)).
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992b). [Russian title]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press. [trans.: Chakoyan, L., Golubev, V. & Tretyakova, T. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (1992a), Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1994c). Rechevye akty v argumentativnykh diskusiyakh. Teoreticheskaya model analiza diskussiy, napravlennyh na razresheniye konflikta mneniy. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press. [trans.: Bogoyavlenskaya, E., Ed. Chakhoyan, L. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht-Cinnaminson: Foris & Berlin: de Gruyter].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1996). La nouvelle dialectique. Paris: Kimé. [trans.: Bruxelles, S., Doury, M., Traverso, V. & Plantin, C. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2002). [Chinese title]. Beijing: Peking University Press. [trans.: Shuxue Zhang of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [trans. into Bulgarian (2006), Chinese (2002), Italian (2008), Spanish (2011)].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2006). Системна теория на аргументацията (Прагматико-диалектически подход). Sofia: Sofia University Press. [trans.: Pencheva, M. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2007). Argumentación, comunicación y falacias. Una perspectiva pragma-dialéctica. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, 2007. (1st ed. 2002). [trans.: López, C. & Vicuña, A. M. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (1992a), Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2008). Una teoria sistematica dell'argomentazione. L'approccio pragma-dialettico. Milan: Mimesis. [trans.: Gilardoni, A. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (2004). A systematic theory of argumentatin. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2009). Как да печелим дебати (Аргументация, комуникация и грешки. прагматико-диалектически перспективи). Sofia: Sofia University Press. [trans.: Alexandrova, A. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum]). van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2010). Argumentare, comunicare şi sofisme. O perspectiva pragma-dialectica. Galati: Galati University Press. [trans.: Andone, C. & Gâţă, A. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2011). Una teoría sistemática de la argumentación. La perspectiva pragma-dialéctica. Buenos Aires: Biblos. [trans.: López, C. & Vicuña, A. M. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2013). Los actos de habla en las discusiones argumentativas. Un modelo teórico para el análisis de discusiones orientadas hacia la resolución de diferencias de opinión. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales. [trans.: Santibáñez Yáñez, C. & Molina, M. E. of F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht-Cinnaminson: Foris & Berlin: de Gruyter].
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1984). Het identificeren van enkelvoudige argumentatie [Identifying single argumentation]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 6(4), 297–310.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002a). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge-Lawrence Erlbaum. (trans. into Albanian (2006a), Armenian (2004), Chinese (2006b), Italian (2011), Japanese (in preparation), Portuguese (in preparation), Russian (2002b), Spanish (2006c)).
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002b). Argumentaciya. Analiz, proverka, predstavleniye. St. Petersburg: Faculty of Philology, St. Petersburg State University. Student Library. [trans.: Chakhoyan, L., Tretyakova, T. & Goloubev, V. of F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge-Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2004). [Armenian title]. Yerevan: Academy of Philosophy of Armenia. [trans.: Brutian, L. of F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge-Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2006a). Argumentimi. Analiza, evaluimi, prezentimi. Tetovo, Macedonia: Forum for Society, Science and Culture ‘Universitas’. [trans.: Memedi, V. of F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2006b). [Chinese title]. Beijing: New World Press. [trans.: Minghui Xiong & Yi Zhao of F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2006c). Argumentación. Análisis, evaluación, presentación. Buenos Aires: Biblos. [trans.: Marafioti, R. of F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge-Lawrence Erlbaum].
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2011). Il galateo della discussione (Orale e scritta). Milan: Mimesis. [trans. Gilardoni, A. of F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum].
van den Hoven, P. J. (1984). Het formuleren van een formele kritiek op een betogende tekst. Een uitgewerkt voorbeeld van een procedureconstructie [Formulating a formal critique of an argumentative text. An elaborated example of the construction of a procedure]. Dordrecht: Foris.
van den Hoven, P. J. (2012). The narrator and the interpreter in visual and verbal argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 257–272). Dordrecht: Springer.
Vapalahti, K., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2013). Online and face-to-face role-play simulations in promoting social work students’ argumentative problem-solving. International Journal of Comparative Social Work, 1.
Vasiliev, L. (1994). Argumentativnyje aspekty ponimanija [Argumentation aspects of comprehension]. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences Press.
Vasilyanova, I. M. (2007). Osobennosti argumentatsii v sudebnom diskurse [Peculiarities of argumentation in court discourse]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Vasilyeva, A. L. (2011). Argumentation in the context of mediation activity. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1905–1921). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Vasilyeva, A. L. (2012). Shaping disagreement space in dispute mediation. In T. Suzuki, T. Kato, A. Kubota, & S. Murai (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Tokyo conference on argumentation. The role of argumentation in society (pp. 120–127). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.
Vassilev, K. (1989). Красноречието. Аспекти на реториката [Eloquence. Aspects of rhetoric]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Vassiliev, L. G. (1999). Rational comprehension of argumentative texts. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 811–801). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Vassiliev, L. G. (2003). A semio-argumentative perspective on enthymeme reconstruction. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1029–1031). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Vaz Ferreira, C. (1945). Lógica viva [Living logic]. Buenos Aires: Losada. (1st ed. 1910).
Vedar, J. (2001). Реторика [Rhetoric]. Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Vega, L. (2005). Si de argumentar se trata [If it is about arguing]. Madrid: Montesinos.
Vega, L., & Olmos, P. (2007). Enthymemes. The starting of a new life. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1411–1417). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Vega, L., & Olmos, P. (Eds.), (2011). Compendio de lógica, argumentación y retórica [Handbook of logic, argumentation, and rhetoric]. Madrid: Trotta. 2nd ed. 2012.
Vicente, J. N. (2009). Educação, retórica e filosofia a partir de Olivier Reboul. Subsídios para uma filosofia da educação escolar [Education, rhetoric and philosophy according to Olivier Reboul. Contributions to a philosophy of school education]. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra. Doctoral dissertation, University of Coimbra.
Vicuña Navarro, A. M. (2007). An ideal of reasonableness for a moral community. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1419–1423). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Vignaux, G. (1976). L’argumentation. Essai d’une logique discursive [Argumentation. Essay on discursive logic]. Genève: Droz.
Vignaux, G. (1988). Le discours, acteur du monde. Argumentation et énonciation [Discourse, actor in the world. Argumentation and utterance]. Paris: Ophrys.
Vignaux, G. (1999). L’argumentation [Argumentation]. Paris: Hatier.
Vignaux, G. (2004). Une approche cognitive de l’argumentation [A cognitive approach to argumentation]. In M. Doury & S. Moirand (Eds.), L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation [Argumention today. Theoretical positions in confrontation] (pp. 103–124). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Vincent, D. (2009). Principes rhétoriques et réalité communicationnelle. Les risques de la concession [Rhetorical principles and communicative reality. The risks of concessions]. In V. Atayan & D. Pirazzini (Eds.), Argumentation. Théorie – langue – discours [Argumentation. Theory – language – discourse] (pp. 79–91). Berlin: Peter Lang.
Vincze, L. (2010). La persuasione nelle parole e nel corpo. Communicazione multimodale e argomentatione ragionevole e fallace nel discorso politico e nel linguaggio quotidiano [Persuasion by means of words and the body. Multimodal communication and reasonable and fallacious argumentation in political discourse and in everyday language]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Rome, Rome.
Visković, N. (1997). Argumentacija i pravo [Argumentation and law]. Split: Pravni fakultet u Splitu.
Volkova, N. (2005). Vysmeivanie i argumentirovanie. Problema vzaimodeystvia rechevyh zhanrov [Mocking and argument. The problem of interaction of speech genres]. Doctoral dissertation, Kaluga State University, Kaluga.
Volquardsen, B. (1995). Argumentative Arbeitsteilung und die Versuchungen des Expertenwesens [The division of argumentative labour and the trial of experts]. In H. Wohlrapp (Ed.), Wege der Argumentationsforschung [Roads of argumentation research] (pp. 339–350). Stuttgart/Bad: Frommann Holzboog.
Voss, J. F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J., & Ney Silfies, L. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7(2), 165–181.
Wallgren-Hemlin, B. (1997). Att övertyga från predikstolen. En retorisk studie av 45 predikningar hållna den 17:e söndagen efter trefaldighet 1990 [Persuading from the pulpit. A rhetorical study of 45 sermons given on the 17th Sunday after Trinity]. Gothenburg: Göteborg Universitet. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg.
Walton, D. N. (1998a). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. N. (2002a). [Russian title]. Moscow: Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. [trans. of D. N. Walton (1998a). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press].
Walton, D. N. (2007). Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese, 157, 197–240.
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013). Compromisos en los diálogos. Conceptos básicos del razonamiento interpersonal. Santiago: Universidad Diego Portales. [trans.: Molina, M. E., Santibáñez, C., & Fuentes, C. of D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe (1995). Commitments in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press].
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, P.-A. (1970). ABC om argumentation [The ABC of argumentation]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Wasilewska-Kamińska, E. (2013). Myślenie krytyczne jako cel kształcenia w USA i Kanadzie [Critical thinking as an educational goal in the USA and Canada]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Warsaw, Warsaw.
Widdowson, H. G. (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19, 136–151.
Wieczorek, K. (2007). Dlaczego wnioskujemy niepoprawnie? Teoria modeli mentalnych P.N. Johnsona-Lairda [Why do we reason incorrectly? The theory of mental models by P.N. Johnson-Laird]. Filozofia Nauki, 70.
Wilkins, R., & Isotalus, P. (Eds.). (2009). Speech culture in Finland. Lanham: University Press of America.
Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action. Politics as usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Wohlrapp, H. (1977). Analytische und konstruktive Wissenschaftstheorie. Zwei Thesen zur Klärung der Fronten [An analytic and constructive theory of science. Two theses to clarify the positions]. In G. Patzig, E. Scheibe & W. Wieland (Eds.), Logik, Ethik, Theorie der Geisteswissenschaften [Logic, ethics, theory of the humanities]. Hamburg: Meiner.
Wohlrapp, H. (1987). Toulmin’s theory and the dynamics of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 327–335). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Wohlrapp, H. (1990). Über nicht-deduktive Argumente [On non-deductive arguments]. In P. Klein (Ed.), Praktische Logik. Traditionen und Tendenzen [Practical logic. Traditions and trends] (pp. 217–235). Göttingen: Van den Hoeck & Ruprecht.
Wohlrapp, H. (1991). Argumentum ad baculum and ideal speech situation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (Organized by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation at the University of Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990) (pp. 397–402). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Wohlrapp, H. (1995). Argumentative Geltung [Argumentative validity]. In H. Wohlrapp (Ed.), Wege der Argumentationsforschung [Directions of argumentation research] (pp. 280–297). Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
Wohlrapp. H. (2009). Der Begriff des Arguments. Über die Beziehungen zwischen Wissen, Forschen, Glauben, Subjektivität und Vernunft [The conception of argument. On the relation between knowing, inquiring, believing, subjectivity, and reason]. Würzburg: Köningshausen & Neumann.
Wolrath Söderberg, M. (2012). Topos som meningsskapare. Retorikens topiska perspektiv på tänkande och lärande genom argumentation [Topoi as meaning makers. Thinking and learning through argumentation – a rhetorical perspective]. Ödåkra: Retorikförlaget.
Woods, J. H. (1992). Public policy and standoffs of force five. In E. M. Barth & E. C. W. Krabbe (Eds.), Logic and political culture (pp. 9–108). Amsterdam: KNAW.
Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1992). Critique de l’argumentation. Logique des sophismes ordinaires [Critique of argumentation. The logic of ordinary fallacies]. Paris: Kimé. [trans.: Antona, M.-F., Doury, M., Marcoccia, M., & Traverso, V., coordinated by C. Plantin of various papers published by Woods & Walton in English between 1974 and 1981)].
Wu, H. (2009). An introduction to informal logic. Beijing: People’s Publishing House.
Xie, Y. (2008). Dialectic within pragma-dialectics and informal logic. In T. Suzuki, T. Kato, & A. Kubota (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo conference on argumentation. Argumentation, the law and justice (pp. 280–286). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.
Xie, Y. (2012). Book review Giving reasons. A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory by Lilian Bermejo-Luque. Informal Logic, 32(4), 440–453.
Xie, Y., & Xiong, M. (2011). Whose Toulmin, and which logic? A response to van Benthem. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation. Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). Windsor, ON. CD rom.
Xiong, M. (2010). Litigational argumentation. A logical perspective on litigation games. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.
Xiong, M., & Zhao, Y. (2007). A defeasible pragma-dialectical model of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1541–1548). Amsterdam: International Center for the Study of Argumentation.
Yanoshevsky, G. (2011). Construing trust in scam letters using ethos and ad hominem. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 2017–2031). Amsterdam: Rozenberg-Sic Sat. CD rom.
Yaskevich, Y. S. (1993). Nauchnaia argumentatciia. Logiko-kommunikativnye parametry [Scientific argumentation. Logical and communicative aspects]. Journal of Speech Communication and Argumentation, 1, 93–102.
Yaskevich, Y. (1999). On the role of ethical and axiological arguments in the modern science. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 900–902). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Yaskevich, Y. (2003). Political risk and power in the modern world. Moral arguments and priorities. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1101–1104). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Yaskevich, Y. (2007). Moral and legal arguments in modern bioethics. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1549–1552). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Yaskorska, O., Kacprzak, M., & Budzynska, K. (2012). Rules for formal and natural dialogues in agent communication. In Proceedings of the international workshop on concurrency, specification and programming (pp. 416–427). Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Yrjönsuuri, M. (1995). Obligationes: 14th century logic of disputational duties (Acta Philosophica Fennica, Vol. 55). Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Yrjönsuuri, M. (Ed.). (2001). Medieval formal logic. Consequences, obligations and insoluble. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zafiu, R. (2003). Valori argumentative în conversaţia spontană [Argumentative values in spontaneous conversation]. In L. Dascălu Jinga & L. Pop (Eds.), Dialogul în româna vorbită [Dialogue in spoken Romanian] (pp. 149–165). Bucharest: Oscar Print.
Zafiu, R. (2010). Ethos, pathos şi logos în textul predicii [Ethos, pathos, and logos in othodoxsermons]. In A. Gafton, S. Guia & I. Milică (Eds.), Text şi discurs religios [Religious text and discourse], II (pp. 27–38). Iaşi: Editura Universităţii “Al. I. Cuza”.
Žagar, I. Ž. (1991). Argumentacija v jeziku proti argumentaciji z jezikom [Argumentation in the language vs. argumentation with the language]. Anthropos, 23(4/5), 172–185.
Žagar, I. Ž. (1995). Argumentation in language and the Slovenian connective pa. Antwerp: IPrA Research Center.
Žagar, I. Ž. (1999). Argumentation in the language-system or why argumentative particles and polyphony are important for education. The School Field, 10(3/4), 159–172.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2000). Argumentacija v jeziku. Med argumentativnimi vezniki in polifonijo: Esej iz intiuitivne epistemologije [Argumentation in the language. Between argumentative connectives and polyphony. An essay in intuitive epistemology]. Anthropos, 32(1/2), 81–92.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2002). Argumentation, cognition, and context. Can we know that we know what we (seem to) know? Anthropological Notebooks, 8(1), 82–91.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2008). Topoi. Argumentation’s black box. In F. H. van Eemeren, D. C. Williams, & I. Ž. Žagar (Eds.), Understanding argumentation. Work in progress (pp. 145–164). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2010). Pa, a modifier of connectives. An argumentative analysis. In M. N. Dedaic & M. Miškovič-Lukovič (Eds.), South Slavic discourse particles (pp. 133–162). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Žagar, I. Ž. (2011). Argument moči ali moč argumenta? Argumentiranje v Državnem zboru Republike Slovenije [Argument of power or power of argument? Argumentation in the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut/Digital Library. http://193.2.222.157/Sifranti/StaticPage.aspx?id=103
Žagar, I. Ž., & Grgič, M. (2011). How to do things with tense and aspect. Performativity before Austin. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Žagar, I. Ž., & Schlamberger Brezar, M. (2009). Argumentacija v jeziku [Argumentation in the language-system]. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut/Digital Library. http://www.pei.si/Sifranti/StaticPage.aspx?id=67
Załęska, M. (2011). Ad hominem in the criticisms of expert argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 2047–2057). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Załęska, M. (2012a). Rhetorical patterns of constructing the politician’s ethos. In M. Załęska (Ed.), Rhetoric and politics. Central/Eastern European perspectives (pp. 20–50). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Załęska, M. (Ed.). (2012b). Rhetoric and politics. Central/Eastern European perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Zanini, C., & Rubinelli, S. (2012). Teaching argumentation theory to doctors. Why and what. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 66–80.
Zemplén, G. Á. (2008). Scientific controversies and the pragma-dialectical model. Analysing a case study from the 1670s, the published part of the Newton-Lucas correspondence. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 249–273). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zemplén, G. Á. (2011). The argumentative use of methodology. Lessons from a controversy following Newton’s first optical paper. In M. Dascal & V. D. Boantza (Eds.), Controversies in the scientific revolution (pp. 123–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zidar Gale, T., Žagar, Ž. I., & Žmavc, J. (2006). Retorika. Uvod v govorniško veščino. Učbenik za retoriko kot izbirni predmet v 9. razredu devetletnega osnovnošolskega izobraževanja [Rhetoric. An introduction to the art of oratory. A textbook for rhetoric lessons in the ninth grade of elementary school education]. Ljubljana: i2.
Ziembiński, Z. (1955). Logika praktyczna [Practical logic]. Warsaw: PWN/Polish Scientific Publishers.
Zillig, W. (1982). Bewerten. Sprechakttypen der bewertenden Rede [Asserting. Speech act types of the assertive mode]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Ziomek, J. (1990). Retoryka opisowa [Descriptive rhetoric]. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.
Žmavc, J. (2008). Ethos and pathos in Anaximenes’ Rhetoric to Alexander. A conflation of rhetorical and argumentative concepts. In F. H. van Eemeren, D. C. Williams, & I. Ž. Žagar (Eds.), Understanding argumentation. Work in progress (pp. 165–179). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Žmavc, J. (2008b). Sofisti in retorična sredstva prepričevanja [The Sophists and rhetorical means of persuasion]. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antropologijo [Journal for the Criticism of Science, Imagination and New Anthropology], 36(233), 23–37.
Žmavc, J. (2012). The ethos of classical rhetoric. From epieikeia to auctoritas. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 181–191). Dordrecht: Springer.
Zubiria, J. de (2006). Las competencias argumentativas. Una visión desde la educación [Argumentative competences. A vision from education]. Bogota: Magisterio.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J.H.M. (2013). Research in Related Disciplines and Non-Anglophone Areas. In: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6883-3_12-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6883-3_12-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6883-3
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities