Advertisement

Classical Backgrounds

  • 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 sketches the origin as well as the further development of the disciplines of dialectic, logic, and rhetoric in antiquity. For the beginnings of dialectic and logic, the chapter turns in Sect. 2.2 to Zeno’s reductio technique and Plato’s three forms of dialectic, for those of rhetoric to the Sophists and the educator Isocrates.

The chapter discusses Aristotle’s contributions to all three disciplines mentioned. In Sect. 2.3 Aristotle’s theory of dialectic is discussed. The fundamental features of the ancient discussion procedure are explained, the construction of argumentation by means of topoi (argument schemes), and tactical issues concerning debates. Sect. 2.4 is devoted to Aristotle’s fallacy theory. The theory of topics of Cicero and Boethius is discussed in Sect. 2.5. Sect. 2.6 explains Aristotle’s syllogistic – a precursor of predicate logic. Sect. 2.7 deals with Stoic logic – a precursor of propositional logic.

Aristotle’s systematic reflections on rhetoric as the art of finding the appropriate means of persuasion are the topic of attention in Sect. 2.8. Sect. 2.9 deals with the classical system of rhetoric, which developed after Aristotle’s time. The system is illustrated by going systematically through the consecutive tasks a speaker has to accomplish in preparation of the actual performance of a speech. In Sect. 2.10, finally, the ancient achievements are tied in with later developments and shown to relate to the various approaches to argumentation developed in present-day argumentation theory.

Keywords

Deductive Argument Minor Premise Hypothetical Syllogism Sophistical Refutation Dialectical Debate 
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. Aristote. (1967). Topiques. Tome I: Livres I-IV [Topics. Vol. I: Books I-IV]. Text edited, translated, introduced, and annotated by Brunschwig, J. Paris: Les belles lettres.Google Scholar
  2. Aristote. (1995). Les réfutations sophistiques [Sophistical refutations]. Translated, introduced, and annotated by Dorion, L. A. Paris: Vrin & Quebec City: Laval.Google Scholar
  3. Aristote. (2007). Topiques. Tome II: Livres V-VIII [Topics. Vol. II: Books V-VIII]. Text edited, translated, introduced, and annotated by Brunschwig, J. Paris: Les belles lettres.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotele. (2007). Le confutazioni sofistiche [Sophistical refutations]. Translated, introduced, and with comment by Fait, P. Rome: Laterza.Google Scholar
  5. Aristoteles. (2014). Over drogredenen. Sofistische weerleggingen [On fallacies. Sophistical refutations]. Translated, introduced, and annotated by Hasper, P. S., & Krabbe, E. C. W. Groningen: Historische uitgeverij (To be published).Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation (2 Vols.). J. Barnes (Ed.). Translated a.o. by Pickard-Cambridge, W. A. (Topics and Sophistical refutations, 1928), Ackrill, J. L. (Categories and De interpretatione, 1963), Jenkinson, A. J. (Prior analytics), and Rhys Roberts, W. (Rhetoric, 1924). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Aristotle. (1997). Topics. Books I and VIII with excerpts from related texts. Clarendon Aristotle Series. Translated with a commentary by Smith, R. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Aristotle. (2012). Aristotle’s Sophistical refutations. A translation (trans: Hasper, P. S.). Logical analysis and history of philosophy [Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse], 15, 1354.Google Scholar
  9. Barnes, J. (Ed.). (1995). The Cambridge companion to Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barnes, J., Schofield, M., & Sorabji, R. (1995). Bibliography. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Aristotle (pp. 295–384). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bobzien, S. (1996). Stoic syllogistic. In C. C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Oxford studies in ancient philosophy (Vol. XIV, pp. 133–192). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  12. Boethius (1978). Boethius’s De topicis differentiis [On topical distinctions]. Translated, with notes and essays on the text, by Stump, E. Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Boger, G. (2004). Aristotle’s underlying logic. In D. M. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), The handbook of the history of logic (Greek, Indian and Arabic logic, Vol. 1, pp. 101–246). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Botting, D. (2012). What is a sophistical refutation? Argumentation, 26(2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Braet, A. C. (2005). The common topic in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Precursor of the argumentation scheme. Argumentation, 19, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Braet, A. C. (2007). De redelijkheid van de klassieke retorica. De bijdrage van klassieke retorici aan de argumentatietheorie [The reasonablenes of classical rhetoric. The contribution of classical rhetoricians to the theory of argumentation]. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Butterworth, C. E. (1977). Averroes’ three short commentaries on Aristotle’s “Topics”, “Rhetoric”, and “Poetics”. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cicero. (2006). On invention, The best kind of orator, Topics (trans: Hubbell, H. M.; Loeb Classical Library 386). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Corcoran, J. (1972). Completeness of an ancient logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37, 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Corcoran, J. (1974). Aristotle’s natural deduction system. In J. Corcoran (Ed.), Ancient logic and its modern interpretations. Proceedings of the Buffalo symposium on modernist interpretations of ancient logic, 21 and 22 April, 1972. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  21. Diogenes Laertius (1925). Diogenes Laertius. Lives of eminent philosophers, I: Books 1–5, II: Books 6–10 (trans: Hicks, R. D.; Loeb classical library 184, 185). London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Dutilh Novaes, C. (2005). Medieval obligationes as logical games of consistency maintenance. Synthese, 145(3), 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ebbesen, S. (1981). Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi. A study of post-aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies (Vol. 3). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  24. Ebbesen, S. (1993). The theory of loci in antiquity and the middle ages. In K. Jacobi (Ed.), Argumentationstheorie. Scholastische Forschungen zu den logischen und semantischen Regeln korrekten Folgerns [Argumentation theory. Scholastic research into logical and semantical rules of correct inference] (pp. 15–39). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  25. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1993). The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century. In E. C. W. Krabbe, R. J. Dalitz, & P. A. Smit (Eds.), Empirical logic and public debate. Essays in honour of Else M. Barth (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  26. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., 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. Mawhah: Lawrence Erlbaum (Transl. into Dutch (1997)).Google Scholar
  27. Fuhrmann, M. (2008). Die antike Rhetorik [Ancient rhetoric]. Düsseldorf: Patmos.Google Scholar
  28. Gill, M. L. (2012). Philosophos. Plato’s missing dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green-Pedersen, N. J. (1984). The tradition of the topics in the Middle Ages. The commentaries on Aristotle’s and Boethius’ ‘Topis.’. Munich-Vienna: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Green-Pedersen, N. J. (1987). The topics in medieval logic. Argumentation, 1, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted in 1986, with a preface by Plecnik, J., & Hoaglund, J. Newport News: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hansen, H. V. (2002). The straw thing of fallacy theory. The standard definition of fallacy. Argumentation, 16(2), 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hasper, P. S. (2013). The ingredients of Aristotle’s theory of fallacy. Argumentation, 27(1), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hintikka, J. (1987). The fallacy of fallacies. Argumentation, 1(3), 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hintikka, J. (1997). What was Aristotle doing in his early logic, anyway? A reply to Woods and Hansen. Synthese, 113(2), 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hitchcock, DL. (2002d). Stoic propositional logic. A new reconstruction. Presented at “Mistakes of Reason,” a conference in honor of John Woods, University of Lethbridge, Alberta, 19–21 April 2002. Accessible at the digital commons of McMaster University, Ontario (Philosophy Publications, Paper 2), http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/philosophy_coll/2
  37. Hitchcock, DL. (2005b). The peculiarities of Stoic propositional logic. In K. A. Peacock & A. D. Irvine (Eds.), Mistakes in reason. Essays in honour of John Woods (pp. 224–242). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  38. Isocrates. (1929). Isocrates, Volume II: On the peace, Aeropagiticus, Against the sophists, Antidosis, Panathenaicus (trans: Norlin, G.; Loeb Classical Library, 229). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kennedy, G. A. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kennedy, G. A. (2001). Historical survey of rhetoric. In S. E. Porter (Ed.), Handbook of classical rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C. – A.D. 400 (pp. 3–41). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  41. Kneale, W., & Kneale, M. (1962). The development of logic. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  42. Krabbe, E. C. W. (1998). Who is afraid of figure of speech? Argumentation, 12, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krabbe, E. C. W. (2009). Cooperation and competition in argumentative exchanges. In H. J. Ribeiro (Ed.), Rhetoric and argumentation in the beginning of the XXIst century (pp. 111–126). Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.Google Scholar
  44. Krabbe, E. C. W. (2012). Aristotle’s On sophistical refutations. Topoi, 31(2), 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kraut, R. (1992). Introduction to the study of Plato. In R. Kraut (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Plato (pp. 1–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lausberg, H. (1998). Handbook of literary rhetoric. A foundation for literary study. Foreword by Kennedy, G. A (trans: Bliss, M. T., Jansen, A., & Orton, D. E.; Eds.: D. E. Orton & R. D. Anderson). Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
  47. Łukasiewicz, J. (1957). Aristotle’s syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic (2nd enlarged ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. First edition 1951.Google Scholar
  48. Łukasiewicz, J. (1967). On the history of the logic of propositions. In S. McCall (Ed.), Polish Logic: 1920–193 (pp. 67–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press (a German version appeared as “Zur Geschichte der Aussagenlogik” in Erkenntnis, 5 (1935), 111–131).Google Scholar
  49. Mack, P. (1993). Renaissance argument. Valla and Agricola in the traditions of rhetoric and dialectic. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
  50. Mack, P. (Ed.). (1994). Renaissance rhetoric. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mack, P. (2011). A history of Renaissance rhetoric 1380–1620. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Malink, M. (2006). A reconstruction of Aristotle’s modal syllogistic. History and Philosophy of Logic, 27(2), 95–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Malink, M. (2013). Aristotle’s modal syllogistic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Martin, J. (1974). Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode [Ancient rhetoric. Technique and method]. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  55. Mates, B. (1961). Stoic logic (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press (First edition 1953).Google Scholar
  56. McKeon, R. (1987). Rhetoric in the middle ages. In M. Backman (Ed.), Rhetoric. Essays in invention and discovery (pp. 121–166). Woodbridge: Ox Bow.Google Scholar
  57. Mendelson, M. (2002). Many sides. A Protagorean approach to the theory, practice, and pedagogy of argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miller, J. M., Prosser, M. H., & Benson, T. W. (Eds.). (1973). Readings in medieval rhetoric. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Moraux, P. (1968). La joute dialectique d’après le huitième livre des Topiques [The dialectical joust according to the eighth book of the Topics]. In G. E. L. Owen (Ed.), Aristotle on dialectic: The Topics. Proceedings of the third symposium aristotelicum (pp. 277–311). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  60. Moss, J. D., & Wallace, W. A. (2003). Rhetoric & dialectic in the time of Galileo. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  61. Murphy, J. J. (Ed.). (1983). Renaissance eloquence. Studies in the theory and practice of Renaissance rhetoric. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  62. Murphy, J. J. (2001). Rhetoric in the middle ages. A history of the rhetorical theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 227; MRTS Reprint Series, 4).Google Scholar
  63. Nuchelmans, G. (1973). Theories of the proposition. Ancient and medieval conceptions of the bearers of truth and falsity. Amsterdam: North-Holland (North-Holland linguistic series, 8).Google Scholar
  64. Nuchelmans, G. (1993). On the fourfold root of the argumentum ad hominem. In E. C. W. Krabbe, R. J. Dalitz, & P. A. Smit (Eds.), Empirical logic and public debate. Essays in honour of Else M. Barth (pp. 37–47). Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  65. Ong, W. J. (1958). Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue. From the art of discourse to the art of reason. Cambridge, MA-London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. O’Toole, R. R., & Jennings, R. E. (2004). The Megarians and the Stoics. In D. M. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), The handbook of the history of logic (Greek, Indian and Arabic logic, Vol. 1, pp. 397–522). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  67. Pater, W. A. de. (1965). Les topiques d’Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne. La méthodologie de la definition [Aristotle’s Topics and platonic dialectic. The methodology of definition] (Etudes thomistiques 10). Fribourg: Editions St. Paul.Google Scholar
  68. Pater, W. A. de. (1968). La fonction du lieu et de l’instrument dans les Topiques [The function of commonplace (topos) and instrument in the Topics]. In G. E. L. Owen (Ed.), Aristotle on dialectic: The topics. Proceedings of the third symposium aristotelicum (pp. 164–188). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  69. Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric (trans: Kluback, W.). Introduction by Arnold, C. C. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  70. Pernot, L. (2005). Rhetoric in antiquity (trans: Higgins, W. E.). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  71. Pinborg, J. (1969). Topik und Syllogistik im Mittelalter. In F. Hoffmann, L. Scheffczyk, & K. Feiernis (Eds.), Sapienter ordinare. Festgabe für Erich Kleineidam (pp. 157–178). Leipzig: St. Benno (Ehrfurter Theologischen Studien, 24).Google Scholar
  72. Plato. (1997). Complete works. In J. M. Cooper, & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Indianapolis-Cambridge, MA: Hackett.Google Scholar
  73. Rambourg, C. (2011). Les topoi d’Aristote, Rhetorique II, 23. Enquête sur les origins de la notion de lieu rhétorique [The topoi in Aristotle, Rhetoric II, 23. An examination of the origins of the notion of a rhetorical topic]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris XII.Google Scholar
  74. Rapp, C. (2002). Aristoteles. Rhetorik [Aristotle. Rhetoric]. Translated with a commentary by Rapp, C. (2 Vols.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  75. Rapp, C. (2010). Aristotle’s rhetoric. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2010 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
  76. Ritoók, Z. (1975). Zur Geschichte des Topos-Begriffes [On the history of the concept of topos]. In Actes de la XIIe conférence internationale d’études classiques [Proceedings of the 12th international conference on classical studies] “Eirene,” Cluj-Napoca, 2–7 October 1972 (pp. 111–114). Bucharest: Ed. Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.Google Scholar
  77. Rubinelli, S. (2009). Ars topica. The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht-Boston: Springer (Argumentation library 15).Google Scholar
  78. Russell, B. (1961). History of Western philosophy and its connection with political and social circumstances from the earliest times to the present day. (New ed.; First ed. 1946). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  79. Sainati V. (1968). Storia dell’ ‘organon’ aristotelico I: Dai ‘Topici’ al ‘De interpretatione’ [History of the Aristotelian Organon I: From the Topics to De interpretatione]. Florence: Le Monnier.Google Scholar
  80. Schiappa, E. (1990). Did Plato coin the term rhêtorikê? American Journal of Philology, 111, 460–473.Google Scholar
  81. Schreiber, S. G. (2003). Aristotle on false reasoning. Language and the world in the Sophistical refutations. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  82. Seigel, J. E. (1968). Rhetoric and philosophy in Renaissance humanism. The union of eloquence and wisdom, Petrarch to Valla. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Sextus Empiricus (1933–1949). Sextus Empiricus, I: Outlines of Pyrrhonism (1933), II: Against logicians [Adversus mathematicos VII, VIII] (1935), III: Against physicists [Adversus mathematicos IX, X], Against ethicists [Adversus mathematicos XI] (1936), IV: Against professors [Adversus mathematicos I-VI] (1949) (trans: Bury, R. G.; Loeb classical library 273, 291, 311, 382). London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
  84. Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle’s topics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  85. Smith, R. (1995). Logic, Chapter 2. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Aristotle (pp. 27–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Solmsen, F. (1929). Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik and Rhetorik [The development of Aristotelian logic and rhetoric]. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
  87. Spade, P. V. (1982). Obligations: B. Developments in the fourteenth century. In N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, & J. Pinborg (Eds.), The Cambridge history of later medieval philosophy (335–341). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Spranzi, M. (2011). The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric. The Aristotelian tradition. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins (Controversies, 9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stump, E. (1982). Obligations: A. From the beginning to the early fourteenth century. In N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, & J. Pinborg (Eds.), The Cambridge history of later medieval philosophy (315–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Stump, E. (1989). Dialectic and its place in the development of medieval logic. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Tindale, C. (2010). Reason’s dark champions. Constructive strategies of sophistic argument. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  92. 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]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  93. Wansing, H. (2010). Connexive logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2010 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/logic-connexive/
  94. Wlodarczyk, M. (2000). Aristotelian dialectic and the discovery of truth. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 18, 153–210.Google Scholar
  95. Woerther, F. (2012). Hermagoras. Fragments et témoignages [Hermagoras. Fragments and testimonies]. Paris: Les belles lettres.Google Scholar
  96. Wolf, S. (2010). A system of argumentation forms in Aristotle. Argumentation, 24(1), 19–40. doi:10.1007/s10503-009-9127-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Woods, J. (1993). Secundum quid as a research programme. In E. C. W. Krabbe, R. J. Dalitz, & P. A. Smit (Eds.), Empirical logic and public debate. Essays in honour of Else M. Barth (pp. 27–36). Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  98. Woods, J. (1999). Files of fallacies: Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). Argumentation, 13(2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Woods, J., & Hansen, H. V. (1997). Hintikka on Aristotle’s fallacies. Synthese, 113(2), 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Woods, J., & Irvine, A. (2004). Aristotle’s early logic. In D. M. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), The handbook of the history of logic (Greek, Indian and Arabic logic, Vol. 1, pp. 27–99). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  101. Yates, F. A. (1966). The art of memory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  102. Yrjönsuuri, M. (1993). Aristotle’s topics and medieval obligational disputations. Synthese, 96, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Yrjönsuuri, M. (Ed.). (2001). Medieval formal logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  104. Yunis, H. (Ed., 2011). Plato. Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
    • 2
  • Jean H. M. Wagemans
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations