Review of Brambilla (2020): The quest for argumentative equivalence. Argumentative patterns in political interpreting contexts

References

1. Andone, C.
   2013 Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.5
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
2. Eemeren, F. H. van
   2010 Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
3. Eemeren, F. H. van
   2017 Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. InF. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns (pp.7–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.02van
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van [Google Scholar]
4. Garssen, B.
   2017 The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. InF. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns (pp.31–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.03gar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.03gar [Google Scholar]
5. Garzone, G.
   2000 Textual analysis and interpreting research. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 69–88.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Garzone, G., & Santulli, F.
   2004 What can corpus linguistics do for critical discourse analysis?InA. Partington, J. Morley & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse. Collection Linguistic Insights. Studies in Language and Communication (pp.351–368). Bern: Peter Lang.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Marzocchi, C.
   1994 Interpretazione e argomentazione: alcune note preliminari per l’analisi dell’argomentazione nel discorso politico. InR. D. Snel Trampus (Ed.), Studi di neerlandistica. Traduzione, interpretazione, lingua (pp.63–72). Trieste: LINT.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Marzocchi, C.
   1997 The analysis of argumentation and its relevance to interpretation research and theory. InK. Klaudy & J. Kohn (Eds.), Transferre Necesse Est. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, 5–7 September, 1996, Budapest, Hungary (pp.179–185). Budapest: Scholastica.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Mohammed, D.
   2018 Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Accusations of inconsistency in response to criticism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.15
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.15 [Google Scholar]
10. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R.
    2001 Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Salvato, L.
    2019 The translator’s visibility. Translators’ critical argumentation on their translating effort. InGarrsen, B., (Eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp.1022–1033). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Williams, M.
    2004 Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centred approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Zarefsky, D.
    2014 Political argumentation in the United States: Historical and contemporary studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.7 [Google Scholar]
14. Ziegelmueller, G. W., & Kay, J.
    1997 Argumentation: Inquiry and advocacy, 3rd edition. Boston/London: Allyn and Bacon.
    [Google Scholar]