The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation

  • Frans H. van Eemeren
  • Bart Garssen
  • Erik C. W. Krabbe
  • A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
  • Bart Verheij
  • Jean H. M. Wagemans
Living reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter discusses the pragma-dialectical approach developed in the Netherlands by van Eemeren and Grootendorst between the 1970s and the late 1990s and extended by van Eemeren and Houtlosser at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century. After a short expose about the origins and development of the theory in Sect. 10.1and a sketch of the normative pragmatic research carried out in pragma-dialectics in Sect. 10.2, in Sect. 10.3 the meta-theoretical starting points are discussed.

In Sect. 10.4 the model for critical discussion is introduced and explained, followed in Sect. 10.5 by a discussion of analysis as reconstruction of argumentative discourse in terms of a critical discussion. In Sect. 10.6 the rules for critical discussion associated with the model are introduced, and in Sect. 10.7 the fallacies that may occur in argumentative discourse are characterized as violations of these rules.

The extension of the standard pragma-dialectical theory with the inclusion of strategic maneuvering is introduced in Sect. 10.8. Sect. 10.9 deals with the conventionalization of argumentative discourse in communicative activity types that needs to be taken into account when analyzing and evaluating specimens of strategic maneuvering. In Sect. 10.10 the fallacies are revisited by characterizing them as derailments of strategic maneuvering in which in aiming for effectiveness one or more of the rules for critical discussion have been violated.

The next two sections are devoted to pragma-dialectical empirical research of argumentative reality. Sect. 10.11 reports about qualitative research, such as the research concerning indicators of argumentative moves in discourse by van Eemeren, Houtlosser, and Snoeck Henkemans and the research of dissociation by van Rees. Sect. 10.12 reports about quantitative research, such as, to mention the most prominent study, van Eemeren, Garssen, and Meuffels’s experimental research concerning the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. In Sect. 10.13 various kinds of applications of pragma-dialectical insights to the analysis and evaluation of strategic maneuvering in specific communicative domains are discussed, such as those of Feteris to the legal domain and those of other pragma-dialecticians to the political, the medical, and the academic domain.

To conclude, Sect. 10.14 reports about various kinds of critical responses to the pragma-dialectical theory.

Keywords

Critical Discussion Argument Scheme Argumentative Discourse Strategic Maneuvering Argumentative Move 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction. Dispute mediators, impasse and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265–290.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, H. (1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft [Treatise on critical reason]. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr. (1st ed. 1968, 5th improved and enlarged ed. 1991). (1st ed. 1968, 5th improved and enlarged ed. 1991).Google Scholar
  3. Amjarso, B. (2010). Mentioning and then refuting an anticipated counterargument. A conceptual and empirical study of the persuasiveness of a mode of strategic manoeuvring. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Andone, C. (2010). Maneuvering strategically in a political interview: Analyzing and evaluating responses to an accusation of inconsistency. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Andone, C. (2012). [Review of] Lilian Bermejo Luque. Giving reasons a linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Argumentation, 26(2), 291–296.Google Scholar
  6. Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in political interviews. Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Revised version of Andone, 2010).Google Scholar
  7. Austin, J. L. (1975). In J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà (Eds.), How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Bermejo-Luque, L. (2011). Giving reasons. A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (1992). Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 85–103). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  11. Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (2006a). In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logic, 26(1), 91–101.Google Scholar
  12. Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (2006b). Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments. Rivals or partners? In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 1–10). Mahwah-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Blair, J. A. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and pragma-dialectics. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 11–22). Mahwah-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Bonevac, D. (2003). Pragma-dialectics and beyond. Argumentation, 17(4), 451–459.Google Scholar
  15. Botting, D. (2010). A pragma-dialectical default on the question of truth. Informal Logic, 30(4), 413–434.Google Scholar
  16. Botting, D. (2012). Pragma-dialectics epistemologized. A reply. Informal Logic, 32(2), 266–282.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, H. (1979). Responding to indirect requests. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430–477.Google Scholar
  18. Cosoreci Mazilu, S. (2010). Dissociation and persuasive definitions as argumentative strategies in ethical argumentation on abortion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest, Bucharest.Google Scholar
  19. Crawshay-Williams, R. (1957). Methods and criteria of reasoning. An inquiry into the structure of controversy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics. A multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  21. DeMorgan, A. (1847). Formal logic. London: Taylor & Walton.Google Scholar
  22. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Doury, M. (2004). La position de l’analyste de l’argumentation [The position of the analyst of argumentation]. Semen, 17, 143–163.Google Scholar
  24. Doury, M. (2006). Evaluating analogy. Toward a descriptive approach to argumentative norms. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 35–49). Mahwah-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. van Eemeren, F. H. (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  26. van Eemeren, F. H. (1987). Argumentation studies’ five estates. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices. Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 9–24). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  27. van Eemeren, F. H. (1990). The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. Text, 10(1/2), 37–44.Google Scholar
  28. van Eemeren, F. H. (2002). Democracy and argumentation. Controversia, 1(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
  29. van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.). (2009). Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. 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)].Google Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F. H. (2012). The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation in discussion. Argumentation, 26(4), 439–457.Google Scholar
  32. Eemeren, F. H. van (2013a). In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle? The case of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 27(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
  33. 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 Científicas (CSIC)/Plaza & Valdés. Theoria cum Praxi. [trans.: Santibáñez Yáñez, C. & Molina, M. E. of F. H. van Eemeren (2010), Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins]. Google Scholar
  34. 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].Google Scholar
  35. van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (Eds.). (2008). Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  36. van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2009). The fallacies of composition and division revisited. Cogency, 1(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2010a). In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
  38. van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2011). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  39. van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012a). Effectiveness through reasonableness. Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33–53.Google Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012b). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated. Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364.Google Scholar
  42. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Wagemans, J. (2012). The pragma-dialectical method of analysis and evaluation. In R. C. Rowland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change. Selected papers from the seventeenth biennial conference on argumentation sponsored by the National Communication Association and the American Forensic Association (pp. 25–47). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  43. van Eemeren, F. H., de Glopper, K., Grootendorst, R., & Oostdam, R. (1995). Identification of unexpressed premises and argumentation schemes by students in secondary school. Argumentation and Advocacy, 31(Winter), 151–162.Google Scholar
  44. 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: Foris & Berlin: de Gruyter [trans. into Russian (1994c) & Spanish (2013)].Google Scholar
  45. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1990). Analyzing argumentative discourse. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation. Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 86–106). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  46. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1991a). The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics at issue. Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17–22, 1987, I (pp. 151–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  47. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1991b). [Chinese title]. Beijing: Peking University Press. [trans.: Shi Xu of F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (1992a), Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum (trans. into Bulgarian (2009), Chinese (1991b), French (1996), Romanian (2010), Russian (1992b), Spanish (2007)].Google Scholar
  49. 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 & R. Grootendorst (1992a), Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  50. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1994a). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  51. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1994b). Rechevye akty v argumentativnykh diskusiyakh. Teoreticheskaya model analiza diskussiy, napravlennyh na razresheniye konflikta mneniy. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press. [trans.: Bogoyavlenskaya, E., & Chakhoyan, L. (Ed.) of F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst, Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris & Berlin: de Gruyter].Google Scholar
  52. 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 & R. Grootendorst (1992a), Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  53. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). From analysis to presentation. A pragma-dialectical approach to writing argumentative texts. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 59–73). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  54. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2002). [Chinese title]. Beijing: Peking University Press. [trans.: Zhang Shuxue of F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (2004), A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].Google Scholar
  55. 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)).Google Scholar
  56. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2006). Sistemna teoria na argumentaciata (Pragmatiko-dialekticheski podhod). Sofia: Sofia University Press. [trans.: Pencheva, M. of F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (2004), A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press]. Google Scholar
  57. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2007). Argumentación, comunicación y falacias. Una perspectiva pragma-dialéctica. 2nd ed. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile. (1st ed. 1992). [trans: López, C., & Vicuña, A. M. of F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst, A systematic theory of argumentation. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].Google Scholar
  58. 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 & R. Grootendorst (2004), A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].Google Scholar
  59. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2009). Kak da pechelim debati (Argumentacia, komunikacia I greshki. Pragma-dialekticheski podhod), II. Sofia: Sofia University Press. [trans: Alexandrova, D. of F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (1992a), Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. The pragma-dialectical approach].Google Scholar
  60. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2010). Argumentare, comunicare şi sofisme. O perspectivă pragma-dialectică. Galati: Galati University Press. [trans:. Andone, C., & Gâţă, A. of F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (1992a), Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  61. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2011). Una teoría sistemática de la argumentación. La perspectiva pragmadialéctica. Buenos Aires: Biblos Ciencias del Lenguaje. [trans.: López, C., & Vicuña, A. M. of F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (2004), A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].Google Scholar
  62. 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.: Santibáþez Yáñez, C. & Molina, M. E. of F. H. van Eemeren & 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].Google Scholar
  63. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  64. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). William the Silent’s argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 168–171). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  65. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000a). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. The case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation, 14(3), 293–305.Google Scholar
  66. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000b). The rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie. A dialectical perspective. In T. Suzuki, Y. Yano, & T. Kato (Eds.), Proceedings of the first Tokyo Conference on argumentation (pp. 37–40). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.Google Scholar
  67. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002a). Strategic maneuvering. Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  68. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002b). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam-Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  69. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003a). A pragmatic view of the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 123–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  70. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003b). Strategic manoeuvring. William the Silent’s Apologie. A case in point. In L. I. Komlósi, P. Houtlosser, & M. Leezenberg (Eds.), Communication and culture. Argumentative, cognitive and linguistic perspectives (pp. 177–185). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  71. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2007). Seizing the occasion. Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. 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. 375–380). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  72. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2008). Rhetoric in a dialectical framework. Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric (pp. 133–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  73. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., Ihnen, C., & Lewiński, M. (2010). Contextual considerations in the evaluation of argumentation. In C. Reed & C. T. Tindale (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument (pp. 115–132). London: King’s College Publications.Google Scholar
  74. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1978). Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht-Antwerpen: Het Spectrum. (2nd enlarged ed. 1981; 3rd ed. 1986). [English trans. 1984, 1987].Google Scholar
  75. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1984). Het identificeren van enkelvoudige argumentatie [Identifying single argumentation]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 6(4), 297–310.Google Scholar
  76. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1985). Gedifferentieerde replicaties van identificatieonderzoek [Differentiated replications of identification research]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 7(4), 241–257.Google Scholar
  77. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1987). Identificatie van argumentatie als vaardigheid [Identifying argumentation as a skill]. Spektator, 16(5), 369–379.Google Scholar
  78. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25(4), 239–245.Google Scholar
  79. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1990). Valkuilen achter een rookgordijn [Pitfalls behind a smokescreen]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 12(1), 47–58.Google Scholar
  80. 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)].Google Scholar
  81. 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 & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a), Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ:Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  82. 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 & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a), Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  83. 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 & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a), Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  84. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2006b). [Chinese title]. Beijing: New World Press. [trans.: Minghui Xiong, of F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a), Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  85. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2006c). Argumentación. Análisis, evaluación, presentación. Buenos Aires: Biblos Ciencias del Lenguaje. [trans: Marafioti, R. of F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002a), Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  86. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2011a). 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: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum].Google Scholar
  87. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  88. van Eemeren, F. H., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (2011b). Argumentation. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 85–106). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  89. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., with Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. [trans. into Dutch (1997)].Google Scholar
  90. van Eemeren, F. H., Meuffels, B., & Verburg, M. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology, 19(4), 416–435.Google Scholar
  91. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman Group.Google Scholar
  92. Feteris, E. T. (1989). Discussieregels in het recht. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van het burgerlijk proces en het strafproces als kritische discussie [Discussion rules in law. A pragma-dialectical analysis of civil lawsuits and criminal trials as a critical discussion]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  93. Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  94. Feteris, E. T. (2002). A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16(3), 349–367.Google Scholar
  95. Feteris, E. T. (2009). Strategic maneuvering in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 93–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  96. Finocchiaro, M. (2006). Reflections on the hyper dialectical definition of argument. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 51–62). Mahwah-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  97. Fisher, A. (2004). The logic of real arguments (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1st ed. 1988).Google Scholar
  98. Foss, S., Foss, K., & Trapp, R. (1985). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. Prospect Heights: Waveland.Google Scholar
  99. Frank, D. A. (2004). Argumentation studies in the wake of The New Rhetoric. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40(Spring), 267–283.Google Scholar
  100. Garssen. B. J. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek [Argument schemes in a pragma-dialectical perspective. A theoretical and empirical research]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  101. Garssen, B. (2002). Understanding argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 93–104). Amsterdam-Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  102. Garssen, B. (2009). Book review of Dialog theory for critical argumentation by Douglas N. Walton (2007). Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 186–188.Google Scholar
  103. Garssen, B., & van Laar, J. A. (2010). A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic, 30(2), 122–141.Google Scholar
  104. Garver, E. (2000). Comments on rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation, 14, 307–314.Google Scholar
  105. Gerber, M. (2011). Pragmatism, pragma-dialectics, and methodology. Toward a more ethical notion of argument criticism. Speaker and Gavel, 48(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  106. Gerlofs, J. M. (2009). The use of conditionals in argumentation. A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of argumentatively used conditionals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  107. Gerritsen, S. (1999). Het verband ontgaat me. Begrijpelijkheidsproblemen met verzwegen argumenten [The connection escapes me. Problems of understanding with unexpressed premises]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij NieuwezijdsGoogle Scholar
  108. Gilbert, M. A. (1997). Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  109. Gilbert, M. A. (2001). Ideal argumentation. A paper presented at the 4th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Windsor, ON.Google Scholar
  110. Gilbert, M. A. (2005). Let’s talk. Emotion and the pragma-dialectical model. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 43–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  111. Goodnight, G. T., & Pilgram, R. (2011). A doctor’s ethos enhancing maneuvers in medical consultation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 135–151). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  112. Goodwin, J. (1999). Good argument without resolution. 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. 255–259). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  113. Greco Morasso, S. (2009). Argumentation in dispute mediation. A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  114. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Groarke, L. (1995). What pragma-dialectics can learn from deductivism, and what deductivism can learn from pragma-dialectics. 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) (Vol. II, pp. 138–145). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  116. Habermas, J. (1971). Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz [Preparatory remarks on a theory of communicative competence]. In J. Habermas & H. Luhmann (Eds.), Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. Was leistet die Systemforschung? [Theory of society or social technology: Where does system research lead to?] (pp. 107–141). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  117. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns [Theory of communicative action]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  118. Habermas, J. (1994). Postscript to Faktizität und Geltung [Postscript to between facts and norms]. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 20(4), 135–150.Google Scholar
  119. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms (trans. Rehg, W.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  120. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–957.Google Scholar
  121. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  122. Hample, D. (2003). Arguing skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 439–477). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  123. Hample, D. (2007). The arguers. Informal Logic, 27(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
  124. Hansen, H. (2003). Theories of presumption and burden of proof. Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), Windsor, ON: OSSA. CD rom.Google Scholar
  125. Hietanen, M. (2005). Paul’s argumentation in Galatians. A pragma-dialectical analysis of Gal. 3.2-5.12. Doctoral dissertation, Abo Akademi University, Turku.Google Scholar
  126. Hohmann, H. (2002). Rhetoric and dialectic. Some historical and legal perspectives. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  127. Houtlosser, P. (1995). Standpunten in een kritische discussie. Een pragma-dialectisch perspectief op de identificatie en reconstructie van standpunten [Standpoints in a critical discussion. A pragma-dialectical perspective on the identification and reconstruction of standpoints]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTTGoogle Scholar
  128. Houtlosser, P. (2003). Commentary on H. V. Hansen’s ‘Theories of presumption and burden of proof’. Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), Windsor, ON: OSSA. CD rom.Google Scholar
  129. Hymes, D. (1972). Foundations in sociolinguistics. An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  130. 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. 131–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  131. Ihnen Jory, C. (2010). The analysis of pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates. Second reading of the terrorism bill in the British House of Commons. Controversia, 7(1), 91–107.Google Scholar
  132. Ihnen Jory, C. (2012). 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, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  133. Jackson, S. (1992). ‘Virtual standpoints’ and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  134. Jackson, S. (1995). Fallacies and heuristics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (Vol. II, pp. 257–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  135. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (2006). Derailments of argumentation. It takes two to tango. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 121–133). Mahwah-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  136. Jacobs, S. (1987). The management of disagreement in conversation. 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. 229–239). Dordrecht-Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
  137. Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002). How to resolve a conflict. Two models of dispute resolution. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 29–44). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  138. Jansen, H. (2003). Van omgekeerde strekking. Een pragma-dialectische reconstructie van a contrario-argumentatie in het recht [Inverted purpose. A pragma-dialectical reconstruction of e contrario argumentation in law]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  139. Jansen, H. (2005). E contrario reasoning. The dilemma of the silent legislator. Argumentation, 19(4), 485–496.Google Scholar
  140. Johnson, R. H. (1995). Informal logic and pragma-dialectics. Some differences. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (Vol. 2, pp. 237–245). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  141. Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  142. Johnson, R. H. (2003). The dialectical tier revisited. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  143. Jungslager, F. S. (1991). Standpunt en argumentatie. Een empirisch onderzoek naar leerstrategieën tijdens het leggen van een argumentatief verband [Standpoint and argumentation. An empirical research concerning learning strategies in making an argumentative connection]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  144. Kauffeld, F. (2006). Pragma-dialectic’s appropriation of speech act theory. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 149–160). Mahwah-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  145. Kennedy, G. A. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  146. Kloosterhuis, H. T. M. (2002). Van overeenkomstige toepassing. De pragma-dialectische reconstructie van analogie-argumentatie in rechterlijke uitspraken [Similar applications. The pragma-dialectical reconstruction of analogy argumentation in pronouncements of judges]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Thela ThesisGoogle Scholar
  147. Kloosterhuis, H. [T. M.] (2006). Reconstructing interpretative argumentation in legal decisions. A pragma-dialectical approach. Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  148. Kock, C. (2003). Multidimensionality and non-deductiveness in deliberative argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 157–171). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  149. Kock, C. (2007). 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 of the Study of Argumentation (pp. 785–788). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  150. Koetsenruijter, A. W. M. (1993). Meningsverschillen. Analytisch en empirisch onderzoek naar de reconstructie en interpretatie van de confrontatiefase in discussies [Differences of opinion. Analytical and empirical research concerning the reconstruction and interpretation of the confrontation stage in discussions]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTTGoogle Scholar
  151. Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002). Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances of pragma-dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam-Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  152. 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.Google Scholar
  153. van Laar, J. A. (2008). Pragmatic inconsistency and credibility. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 163–179). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  154. Labrie, N. (2012). Strategic maneuvering in treatment decision-making discussions. Two cases in point. Argumentation, 26(2), 171–199.Google Scholar
  155. Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  156. Lewiński, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  157. Lumer, C. (2010). Pragma-dialectics and the function of argumentation. Argumentation, 24(1), 41–69.Google Scholar
  158. Lumer, C. (2012). The epistemic inferiority of pragma-dialectics. Informal Logic, 32(1), 51–82.Google Scholar
  159. Lunsford, A., Wilson, K., & Eberly, R. (2009). Introduction. Rhetorics and roadmaps. In A. Lunsford, K. Wilson, & R. Eberly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies (pp. xi–xxix). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  160. Massey, G. (1975). Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad? Philosophy in Context, 4, 61–77.Google Scholar
  161. Mohammed, D. (2009). The honourable gentleman should make up his mind. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  162. Muraru, D. (2010). Mediation and diplomatic discourse. The strategic use of dissociation and definitions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest, Bucharest.Google Scholar
  163. Oostdam, R. J. (1991). Argumentatie in de peiling. Een aanbod- en prestatiepeiling van argumentatievaardigheden in het voortgezet onderwijs [Argumentation to the test. A test of material and achievements relating to argumentative skills in secondary education]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  164. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation (trans. Wilkinson, J., & Weaver, P.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (1st ed. published in French in 1958).Google Scholar
  165. Pike, K. L. (1967). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In D. C. Hildum (Ed.), Language and thought. An enduring problem in psychology (pp. 32–39). Princeton: Van Norstrand.Google Scholar
  166. Pinto, R. C., & Blair, J. A. (1989). Information, inference and argument. A handbook of critical thinking. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor (Internal publication).Google Scholar
  167. Plug, H. J. (1999). Evaluating tests for reconstructing the structure of legal argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 639–643). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  168. Plug, H. J. (2000a). Indicators of obiter dicta. A pragma-dialectical analysis of textual clues for the reconstruction of legal argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8, 189–203.Google Scholar
  169. Plug, H. J. (2000b). In onderlinge samenhang bezien. De pragma-dialectische reconstructie van complexe argumentatie in rechterlijke uitspraken [Considered in mutual interdependence. The pragma-dialectical reconstruction of complex argumentation in pronouncements of judges]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  170. Plug, H. J. (2002). Maximally argumentative analysis of judicial argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 261–270). Amsterdam-Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  171. Plug, H. J. (2010). Ad-hominem arguments in Dutch and European parliamentary debates. Strategic manoeuvring in an institutional context. In C. Ilie (Ed.), Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates (pp. 305–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  172. Plug, H. J. (2011). Parrying ad-hominem arguments in parliamentary debates. 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. 1570–1578). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. CD-rom.Google Scholar
  173. Poppel, L. van (2011). Solving potential disputes in health brochures with pragmatic 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. 1559–1570). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. CD rom.Google Scholar
  174. Poppel, L. van (2013). Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  175. Poppel, L., & Rubinelli, S. (2011). Try the smarter way’. On the claimed efficacy of advertised medicines. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 153–163). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  176. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  177. Popper, K. R. (1974). Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  178. van Rees, M. A. (1989). Het kritische gehalte van probleemoplossende discussies [The critical quality of problem-solving discussions]. In M. M. H. Bax & W. Vuijk (Eds.), Thema’s in de taalbeheersing [Themes in speech communication research] (pp. 29–36). Dordrecht: ICG Publications.Google Scholar
  179. van Rees, M. A. (1991). Problem solving and critical discussion. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 281–291). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  180. van Rees, M. A. (1992a). The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining conversational phenomena. A response to some conversation analytical critics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 31–47.Google Scholar
  181. van Rees, M. A. (1992b). Problem solving and critical discussion. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 281–291). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  182. van Rees, M. A. (1994a). Analysing and evaluating problem-solving discussions. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 197–217). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  183. van Rees, M. A. (1994b). Functies van herhalingen in informele discussies [Functions of repetitions in informal discussions]. In A. Maes, P. van Hauwermeiren, & L. van Waes (Eds.), Perspectieven in taalbeheersingsonderzoek [Perspectives in speech communication research] (pp. 44–56). Dordrecht: ICG.Google Scholar
  184. van Rees, M. A. (1995a). Argumentative discourse as a form of social interaction. Implications for dialectical reconstruction. 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. 159–167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  185. van Rees, M. A. (1995b). Functions of repetition in informal discussions. In C. Bazanella (Ed.), Repetition in dialogue (pp. 141–155). Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  186. van Rees, M. A. (2001). Review of Manifest Rationality of R. H. Johnson. Argumentation, 15(2), 231–237.Google Scholar
  187. van Rees, M. A. (2003). Within pragma-dialectics. Comments on Bonevac. Argumentation, 17(4), 461–464.Google Scholar
  188. van Rees, M. A. (2009). Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  189. Rigotti, E., & Rocci, A. (2006). Towards a definition of communicative context. Foundations of an interdisciplinary approach to communication. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6(2), 155–180.Google Scholar
  190. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  191. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  192. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  193. Siegel, H., & Biro, J. (2010). The pragma-dialectician’s dilemma. Reply to Garssen and van Laar. Informal Logic, 30(4), 457–480.Google Scholar
  194. Slot, P. (1993). How can you say that? Rhetorical questions in argumentative texts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
  195. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  196. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1992). Analysing complex argumentation. The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  197. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2005). What’s in a name? The use of the stylistic device metonymy as a strategic manoeuvre in the confrontation and argumentation stages of a discussion. In D. L. Hitchcock (Ed., 2005a), The uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University 18–21 May 2005 (pp. 433–441). Hamilton: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  198. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2009a). Manoeuvring strategically with rhetorical questions. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation. Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 15–23). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  199. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2009b). The contribution of praeteritio to arguers’ confrontational strategic manoeuvres. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 241–255). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  200. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2011). Shared medical decision-making. Strategic maneuvering by doctors in the presentation of their treatment preferences to patients. 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. 1811–1818). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. CD rom.Google Scholar
  201. Swearingen, C. J., & Schiappa, E. (2009). Historical studies in rhetoric. Revisionist methods and new directions. In A. Lusford, K. Wilson, & R. Eberly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies (pp. 1–12). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  202. Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  203. Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  204. Tonnard, Y. M. (2011). Getting an issue on the table. A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  205. Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  206. Tseronis, A. (2009). Qualifying standpoints. Stance adverbs as a presentational device for managing the burden of proof. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOTGoogle Scholar
  207. Verbiest, A. E. M. (1987). Confrontaties in conversaties. Een analyse op grond van argumentatie- en gesprekstheoretische inzichten van het ontstaan van meningsverschillen in informele gesprekken [Confrontations in conversations. An analysis based on insights from argumentation theory and conversation theory about the origin of differences of opinion in informal conversations]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  208. Viskil, E. (1994). Definiëren. Een bijdrage aan de theorievorming over het opstellen van definities [Defining. A contribution to the theorizing about the construction of definitions]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  209. Wagemans, J. H. M. (2009). Redelijkheid en overredingskracht van argumentatie. Een historisch-filosofische studie over de combinatie van het dialectische en het retorische perspectief op argumentatie in de pragma-dialectische argumentatietheorie [Reasonableness and persuasiveness of argumentation. A historical-philosophical study on the combination of the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective on argumentation in the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  210. Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion. Argumentation, 25(3), 329–339.Google Scholar
  211. Walton, D. N. (1991a). Begging the question. Circular reasoning as a tactic of argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  212. Walton, D. N. (1991b). Hamblin and the standard treatment of fallacies. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 24, 353–61.Google Scholar
  213. Walton, D. N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  214. Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  215. Walton, D. N. (1999). Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation, 13(1), 53–71.Google Scholar
  216. Walton, D. N. (2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  217. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  218. Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument. Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation. Essays in the honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights: Waveland.Google Scholar
  219. Wohlrapp, H. (2009). Der Begriff des Arguments. Über die Beziehungen zwischen Wissen, Forschen, Glauben, Subjektivität and Vernunft [The notion of argument. On the relations between knowing, researching, believing, subjectivity and rationality]. 2n ed. supplemented with a subject index. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  220. Woods, J. (1991). Pragma-dialectics. A radical departure in fallacy theory. Communication and Cognition, 24(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
  221. Woods, J. (2004). The death of argument. Fallacies in agent-based reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  222. Woods, J. (2006). Pragma-dialectics. A retrospective. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 301–311). Mahwah-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  223. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1989). Fallacies. Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin: de Gruyter/Foris.Google Scholar
  224. Wreen, M. J. (1994). Look, Ma! No Frans! Pragmatics & Cognition, 2(2), 285–306.Google Scholar
  225. Zemplén, G. A. (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.Google Scholar
  226. Zenker, F. (2007a). Changes in conduct-rules and ten commandments. Pragma-dialectics 1984 vs. 2004. 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. 1581–1489). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  227. Zenker, F. (2007b). Pragma-dialectic’s necessary conditions for a critical discussion. In J. A. Blair, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). Windsor, ON: OSSA. CD rom.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frans H. van Eemeren
    • 1
  • Bart Garssen
    • 1
  • Erik C. W. Krabbe
    • 2
  • A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    • 1
  • Bart Verheij
    • 3
  • Jean H. M. Wagemans
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of Mathematics and Natural SciencesUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations