Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This article reviews Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective



Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Blair, J. Anthony
    2010 “Logic in the Pragma-Dialectical theory.” InFrans H. van Eemeren (Eds.), ISSA Proceedings 2010. (rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2010-logic-in-the-pragma-dialectical-theory/; last seenNovember 28, 2018)
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Dijk, Teun A. van and Kintsch, Walter
    1983Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    (ed.) 2002Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2010Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  5. (ed.) 2015Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. (ed.) 2017Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11 [Google Scholar]
  7. Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst
    1984Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1992Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (eds.) 1994Studies in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2004A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser
    2002 “Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Maintaining a delicate balance.” InFrans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp.131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_10 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst and Tjark Kruiger
    1978Argumentatietheorie. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative indicators in discourse. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels
    2009Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑2614‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H. M. Wagemans
    2014Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Feteris, Eveline, Bart Garssen and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    (Eds.) (2011) Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.163
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.163 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamblin, Charles L.
    1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Houtlosser, Peter and Agnès van Rees
    (Eds.) 2006 Considering Pragma-Dialectics. A Festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnson-Laird, Philip
    2006How we reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kalinowski, Georges
    1972Einführung in die Normenlogik. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kienpointner, Manfred
    1998 “Speech Act Sequences in Latin prose: Questions and Answers.” In: Charles M. Ternes and Dominique Longrée (éd.), Oratio soluta – oratio numerosa. Les mécanismes linguistiques de cohésion et de rupture dans la prose latine (pp.65–86). Luxembourg: Centre Alexandre-Wiltheim.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008 “Impoliteness and emotional arguments.” Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 243–265. 10.1515/JPLR.2008.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011 “Fiktive Argumente.” InCarl Friedrich Gethmann (ed.), Lebenswelt und Wissenschaft (pp.505–538). Hamburg: Meiner.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2006Whose Freedom? The Battle over America‘s Most Important Idea. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lewis, David K.
    1986On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lyons, John
    1977 Semantics. 2Vols.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1983Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Plantin, Christian
    1998 “Les raisons des émotions.” InMarina Bondi (ed.), Forms of Argumentative Discourse (pp.3–50). Bologna: Clueb.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2005L’argumentation. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Risselada, Rodie
    1993Imperatives and other directive expressions in Latin. Amsterdam: Gieben. 10.1163/9789004408975
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004408975 [Google Scholar]
  32. Schank, Roger C. and Robert P. Abelson
    1977Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Schwarz, Monika and Jeannette Chur
    1996Semantik. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Searle, John
    1969Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1976 “A classification of illocutionary acts.” Language in Society5, 1–24. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  36. Visser, Jacky
    2016 A dialogue game for critical discussion. Groundwork in the formalisation and computerisation of the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation. Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Woods, John
    2004The death of argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑2712‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2712-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Woods, John and Douglas N. Walton
    1989Fallacies. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110816082
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110816082 [Google Scholar]
  39. Walton, Douglas N.
    1982Topical relevance in argumentation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.iii.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iii.8 [Google Scholar]
  40. 1992The Place of emotion in argumentation. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1997Appeal to Pity. New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2000Scare Tactics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑2940‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2940-6 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wunderlich, Dieter
    1976Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Book Review
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error