Dialectical Profiles and Indicators of Argumentative Moves

The study of argumentation is prospering. After its brilliant start in Antiquity, highlighted in the classical works of Aristotle, after an alternation of ups and downs during the following millennia, in the post-Renaissance period its gradual decline set in. Revitalization took place only after Toulmin and Perelman published in the same year (1958) their landmark works The Uses of Argument and La nouvelle rhetorique (co-authored by Olbrechts-Tyteca and translated into English in 1969). The model of argumentation presented by Toulmin and Perelman’s inventory of argumentation techniques inspired a great many scholars in various ways to take up the study of argumentation in a serious manner. Nowadays there are well-established (formal as well as informal) logical approaches to argumentation, but also social and socio-psychological, linguistic, juridical and other approaches. In most of these approaches traces can be found of the influence of the classical and neo-classical argumentation theories just mentioned.

[1]  Julia Frankfurter,et al.  Anyone Who Has A View Theoretical Contributions To The Study Of Argumentation , 2016 .

[2]  J. Robert Cox,et al.  Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. , 1982 .

[3]  Snoeck Henkemans,et al.  Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion , 1992 .

[4]  O. Oha.  Fallacies , 2005 .

[5]  Sally Jackson,et al.  Chapter 34. Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme , 1992 .

[6]  P. Houtlosser,et al.  The speech act 'advancing a standpoint' , 1994 .

[7]  Arne Naess,et al.  Communication and argument : elements of applied semantics , 1968 .

[8]  Rob Grootendorst,et al.  Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem , 1992 .

[9]  Karin Baier,et al.  The Uses Of Argument , 2016 .

[10]  James B. Freeman,et al.  Arguments about Arguments , 2007 .

[11]  Rob Grootendorst,et al.  A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion , 2003, Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse.

[12]  R. Swinburne.  OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE: AN EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH , 1973 .

[13]  O. Ducrot,et al.  Les Mots du discours , 1981 .

[14]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective , 1992 .

[15]  de Cornelis Glopper.  Taalbeheersing in Theorie en Praktijk. , 1985 .

[16]  J. Mackenzie.  The dialectics of logic , 1981 .

[17]  J. M. Atkinson.  Structures of Social Action: Contents , 1985 .

[18]  S. Jackson,et al.  Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme , 1980 .

[19]  P. Houtlosser,et al.  Indicators of a point of view , 2002 .

[20]  F. H. van Eemeren,et al.  Argumentatieve indicatoren in het Nederlands; Een pragma-dialectische studie , 2005 .

[21]  Erik C. W. Krabbe.  Boekbeoordeling [Peter Houtlosser, Standpunten in een kritische discussie: Een pragma-dialectisch perspectief op de identificatie en reconstructie van standpunten (proefschrift, Universiteit van Amsterdam), Amsterdam: IFOTT, 1995 ( Studies in Language and Language Use 22)] , 1997 .

[22]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[23]  Snoeck Henkemans,et al.  Indicators of Complex Argumentation , 2003 .

[24]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse , 1986 .

[25]  Peter Houtlosser,et al.  Dialectic and Rhetoric. The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis , 2002 .

[26]  P. Houtlosser.  Standpunten in een kritische discussie. Een pragma-dialectisch perspectief op[ de identificatie en reconstructie van standpunten , 1995 .

[27]  Sally Jackson,et al.  Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Conversation. , 1981 .

[28]  F. H. van Eemeren,et al.  Indicatoren van dialectische geschilprofielen , 2000 .

[29]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach , 2003 .

[30]  Sara Weiss.  Question Reply Argumentation , 2016 .

[31]  D. Walton.  Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance , 1999 .

[32]  P. Houtlosser.  Indicatoren van protagonisme , 1997 .

[33]  Peter William Wise.  Writing at noon , 2002 .

[34]  F. V. Eemeren.  A systematic theory of argumentation , 2004 .

[35]  Rob Grootendorst,et al.  Indicators of argumentation structures , 2003 .

[36]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Speech acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion (vertaling in het Russisch) , 1984 .

[37]  M. Sachs.  Objective Knowledge , 1974 .

[38]  M. de Rijke,et al.  JFAK. Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th Birthday , 1999 .

[39]  J. Sadock.  Speech acts , 2007 .

[40]  J. A. Blair,et al.  Anyone who has a view : theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation , 2003 .

[41]  D. Holdcroft.  Expression and Meaning. , 1982 .

[42]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Speech acts in argumentative discussions , 1984 .

[43]  K. Popper.  Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach , 1972 .

[44]  J. Searle,et al.  Expression and Meaning. , 1982 .

[45]  F. H. van Eemeren,et al.  Advances in Pragma Dialectics , 2002 .

[46]  Rob Grootendorst,et al.  Studies in Pragma-dialectics , 1994 .

[47]  J. A. Blair,et al.  Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory : A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments , 1997 .

[48]  H. Albert.  Traktat über kritische Vernunft , 1980 .

[49]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuation dialogues , 1992 .

[50]  J. Atkinson,et al.  A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement , 1985 .

[51]  WooSoo Park.  The New Rhetoric , 2011 .

[52]  C. Perelman,et al.  La nouvelle rhétorique , 1956 .

[53]  Csr Young,et al.  How to Do Things With Words , 2009 .

[54]  J. Farris.  CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS , 1995, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[55]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Fundamentals Of Argumentation Theory , 1996 .

[56]  木村 和夫.  Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[57]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[58]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  Profiles of Dialogue , 1999 .

[59]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  From axiom to dialogue , 1982 .

[60]  A. Koller,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1969 .

[61]  J. Searle.  Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts , 1979 .

[62]  S. Jackson,et al.  Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse , 1993 .

[63]  A. F. Snoeck Henkemans.  'But' as an indicator of counter-arguments and concessions , 1995 .

[64]  Sally Jackson,et al.  Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts , 1983 .

[65]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning , 1995 .

[66]  Wilbert Spooren,et al.  Argumentation, explanantion and causality: an exploration of current linguistic approaches to textual relations , 2001 .

[67]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge , 1972 .

[68]  Frans H. van Eemeren,et al.  Argumentative Indicators in Discourse, A Pragma-Dialectical Study , 2007, Argumentation Library.

[69]  A. Tsui,et al.  The pragmatic functions of I don’t know , 1991 .

[70]  C. Perelman,et al.  La nouvelle rhétorique traité de l'argumentation , 1958 .