oa Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement

References

1. Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey
   2022a Straw Man Arguments: A Study in Fallacy Theory. London ; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781350065031
   https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350065031 [Google Scholar]
2. Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey
   2022b “Argumentation and the Problem of Agreement.” Synthese200 (2): 134. 10.1007/s11229‑022‑03680‑4
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03680-4 [Google Scholar]
3. Aikin, Scott F., and Robert B. Talisse
   2018 Why we Argue (and How we Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in the Age of Unreason. Second edition. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315110493
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110493 [Google Scholar]
4. Austin, John
   1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bermejo Luque, Lilian, and Andrei Moldovan
   eds. 2021 “Speech Acts and Argumentation.” Special issue. Informal Logic41 (3). https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/issue/view/649
   [Google Scholar]
6. Boogaart, Ronny, Henrike Jansen, and Maarten van Leeuwen
   eds. 2021 The Language of Argumentation. Argumentation Library 36. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52907‑9
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52907-9 [Google Scholar]
7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
   1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
8. Castro Amenábar, Diego
   2022 “Argumentation and Disagreement: A Pluralistic Approach.” University of Groningen. 10.33612/diss.219238903
   https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.219238903 [Google Scholar]
9. Chalmers, David J.
   2011 “Verbal Disputes.” The Philosophical Review120 (4): 515–566. 10.1215/00318108‑1334478
   https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-1334478 [Google Scholar]
10. Eemeren, Frans van
    2010 Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
11. Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst
    1984 Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
12. Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst
    2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst, Scott Jacobs, and Sally A. Jackson
    1993 Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Eemeren, Frans van, and Peter Houtlosser
    2006 “Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation.” Argumentation20 (4): 381–392. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9037‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z [Google Scholar]
15. Eemeren, Frans van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Snoeck Henkemans
    2007 Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Vol.121. Argumentation Library. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
16. Goodwin, Jean
    2001 “The Noncooperative Pragmatics of Arguing.” InPragmatics in 2000: Selected Papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol.21, edited byE. T. Németh, 263–277. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Goodwin, Jean, and Beth Innocenti
    2019 “The Pragmatic Force of Making an Argument.” Topoi38 (4): 669–680. 10.1007/s11245‑019‑09643‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09643-8 [Google Scholar]
18. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited byPeter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 31:41–58. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
19. Hardaker, Claire
    2010 “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research6 (2): 215–242. 10.1515/jplr.2010.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.011 [Google Scholar]
20. Herman, Thierry, and Steve Oswald
    eds. 2014 Rhétorique et Cognition: Perspectives Théoriques et Stratégies Persuasives / Rhetoric and Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies’. Bilingual edition. Sciences Pour La Communication 112. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0352‑0271‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0271-7 [Google Scholar]
21. Herman, Thierry, Jérôme Jacquin, and Steve Oswald
    eds. 2018 Les mots de l’argumentation. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b14941
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b14941 [Google Scholar]
22. Herman, Thierry, Jérôme Jacquin, and Steve Oswald
    2022 “‘You Want Me to Be Wrong’: Expert Ethos, (de-)Legitimation, and Ethotic Straw Men as Discursive Resources for Conspiracy Theories.”. InConspiracy Theory Discourses, edited byMassimiliano Demata, Virginia Zorzi, and Angela Zottola, 981:99–120???. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.98.05her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.98.05her [Google Scholar]
23. Hinton, Martin
    2021 Evaluating the Language of Argument. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑61694‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61694-6 [Google Scholar]
24. Imam, Ahmed Al
    2017 “Who Is the GOAT: Jordan, Bryant, or King James? An Inference Based on Data Crunching of the Surface Web.” Journal of Athletic Enhancement06 (05). 10.4172/2324‑9080.1000270
    https://doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000270 [Google Scholar]
25. Innocenti, Beth
    2022 “Demanding a Halt to Metadiscussions.” Argumentation36 (3): 345–364. 10.1007/s10503‑022‑09569‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09569-3 [Google Scholar]
26. Jackson, Sally
    1992 “Virtual Standpoints and the Pragmatics of Conversational Argument.” InArgumentation Illuminated, edited byFrans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles Willard, 11:260–269. Amsterdam: Sicsat.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Jacobs, Scott
    1987 “The Management of Disagreement in Conversation.” InAcross the Lines of Disciplines, edited byFrans Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Anthony Blair, 229–240. Amsterdam: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110867718.229
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867718.229 [Google Scholar]
28. Jacobs, Scott
    2000 “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.” Argumentation14 (3): 261–286. 10.1023/A:1007853013191
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007853013191 [Google Scholar]
29. Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson
    1982 “Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach.” InAdvances in Argumentation Theory and Research, edited byJR Cox and Charles Willard, 205–237. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Univ. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson
    1992 “Relevance and Digressions in Argumentative Discussion: A Pragmatic Approach.” Argumentation6 (2): 161–176. 10.1007/BF00154323
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154323 [Google Scholar]
31. Jacobs, Scott, Sally Jackson, and Xiaoqi Zhang
    2022 “What Was the President’s Standpoint and When Did He Take It? A Normative Pragmatic Study of Standpoint Emergence in a Presidential Press Conference.” Languages7 (2): 153. 10.3390/languages7020153
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020153 [Google Scholar]
32. Kauffeld, Fred
    1998 “Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing.” Argumentation12 (2): 245–266. 10.1023/A:1007704116379
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007704116379 [Google Scholar]
33. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
34. Lewiński, Marcin, and Pedro Abreu
    2022 “Arguing About ‘COVID’: Metalinguistic Arguments on What Counts as a ‘COVID-19 Death.’” InThe Pandemic of Argumentation, edited bySteve Oswald, Marcin Lewiński, Sara Greco, and Serena Villata, 431: 17–41. Argumentation Library. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑91017‑4_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_2 [Google Scholar]
35. Lewiński, Marcin, Bianca Cepollaro, Steve Oswald, and Maciej Witek
    eds. 2023 “Norms of Public Argument: A Speech Act Perspective.” Special Issue. Topoi42 (2). 10.1007/s11245‑023‑09918‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-023-09918-1 [Google Scholar]
36. Luginbühl, Martin, and Judith Kreuz
    2020 “From Flat Propositions to Deep Co-Constructed and Modalized Argumentations: Oral Argumentative Skills among Elementary School Children from Grades 2 to 6.” Research on Children and Social Interaction4 (1): 93–114. 10.1558/rcsi.12416
    https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12416 [Google Scholar]
37. Morency, Patrick, Steve Oswald, and Louis de Saussure
    2008 “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics221: 197–219. 10.1075/bjl.22.10mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.10mor [Google Scholar]
38. Mundwiler, Vera, and Judith Kreuz
    2018 “Collaborative Decision-Making in Argumentative Group Discussions among Primary School Children.” InArgumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, 263–285. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_12 [Google Scholar]
39. Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel de, and Steve Oswald
    2022 “On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning – A Pragmatic Approach.” Languages8 (1): 6. 10.3390/languages8010006
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010006 [Google Scholar]
40. Oswald, Steve
    2016 “Commitment Attribution and the Reconstruction of Arguments.” InThe Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, edited byFabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felletti, 591:17–32. Studies in Logic and Argumentation. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Oswald, Steve
    ed. 2022 “Pragmatics and Argumentation.” Special issue. Languages71.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Oswald, Steve
    2023a ‘Pragmatics for Argumentation’. Journal of Pragmatics2031 (January): 144–156. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.001 [Google Scholar]
43. Oswald, Steve
    2023b “The Pragmatics and Argumentation Interface.” Languages8 (3): 210. 10.3390/languages8030210
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030210 [Google Scholar]
44. Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin
    eds. 2018 Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4 [Google Scholar]
45. Oswald, Steve, and Marcin Lewiński
    2014 “Pragmatics, Cognitive Heuristics and the Straw Man Fallacy.” InRhétorique et Cognition: Perspectives Théoriques et Stratégies Persuasives – Rhetoric and Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies, edited byThierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 313–343. Sciences Pour La Communication 112. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Plunkett, David
    2015 “Which Concepts Should we Use?: Metalinguistic Negotiations and the Methodology of Philosophy.” Inquiry58 (7–8): 828–874. 10.1080/0020174X.2015.1080184
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2015.1080184 [Google Scholar]
47. Pollaroli, Chiara, Sara Greco, Steve Oswald, Johanna Miecznikowski, and Andrea Rocci
    eds. 2019 Rhetoric and Language: Emotions and Style in Argumentative Discourse (Special Issue of Informal Logic 39:4).
    [Google Scholar]
48. Rocci, Andrea, Sara Greco, Rebecca Schär, Josephine Convertini, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, and Antonio Iannaccone
    2020 “The Significance of the Adversative Connectives Aber, Mais, Ma (“but”) as Indicators in Young Children’s Argumentation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context9 (1): 69–94. 10.1075/jaic.00008.roc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00008.roc [Google Scholar]
49. Schumann, Jennifer
    2022a “The Pragmatics of Straw Man Fallacies. An Experimental Approach.” Bern: University of Bern.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Schumann, Jennifer
    2022b “Do People Perceive the Disagreement in Straw Man Fallacies? An Experimental Investigation.” Languages7 (2): 111. 10.3390/languages7020111
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020111 [Google Scholar]
51. Searle, John R.
    1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
52. Weger, Harry, and Mark Aakhus
    2005 “Competing Demands, Multiple Ideals, and the Structure of Argumentation Practices: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Televised Town Hall Meetings Following the Murder Trial of O.J. Simpson.” InArgumentation in Practice, edited byFrans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 21: 181–195. Controversies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.15weg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.15weg [Google Scholar]
53. Zenker, Frank, Jan Albert Van Laar, B. Cepollaro, A. Gâţă, M. Hinton, C. G. King, B. Larson,
    2023 “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.” Argumentation, March. 10.1007/s10503‑023‑09598‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09598-6 [Google Scholar]