Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 1–18

Cross-disciplinary perspectives on context-specific argumentation practices

Article outline
  • Structure of the volume
    • Section I.Theoretical perspectives on argumentation – revisited
    • Section II.Argumentation practices in political discourse environments
    • Section III.Argumentation practices in legal discourse environments
    • Section IV. Argumentation practices in debates on societal and family issues
    • Section V.Argumentation practices in multi-modal discourse environments
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.01ile
References

References

Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, Erik C.
(1982) From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blair, J. A.
(1997) The limits of the dialogue model of argument (May 15, 1997). OSSA Conference Archive. Paper 10.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R.
(1992) Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Houtlosser, P.
(2005) Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock (Ed.), The Uses of a Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University (pp. 75–84). Hamilton, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
Godden, D. M.
(2003) On Toulmin’s fields and Wittgenstein’s later views on logic. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck-Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 369–375). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Goodnight, G. T.
(1982) The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18(4), 214–227.Google Scholar
Gronbeck, B. E.
(1981) Socio-cultural notions of argument fields: A primer. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation (1–20). Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Hanson, J.
(1989) Argument fields, logical types, and shared purposes. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.) Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 275–285). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Klumpp, J. F.
(1981) A Dramatistic Approach to Fields. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.) Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings for the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 44–55). Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Kneupper, C. W.
(1981) Argument fields: some social constructivist observations. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.) Dimensions of argument: Proceedings for the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 80–87). Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
McKerrow, R. E.
(1980) Argument communities: a quest for distinctions. In J. Rhodes and S. Newell (Eds.), Proceedings of the [First] Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 214–227). Falls Church, VA.: Speech and Communication Association and American Forensic Association.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The TA Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pieraut-Le Bonniec, G., & Valette, M.
(1991) The development of argumentative Discourse. In G. Pieraut-Le Bonniec and M. Dolitsky (Eds.) Language bases … discourse bases: Some Aspects of Contemporary French Language Psycholinguistics Research (pp. 245–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowland, R. C.
1981 Argument fields. In: G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings for the second summer conference on argumentation (pp. 56–79), Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
1982 The influence of purpose on fields of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 228–245.Google Scholar
(1992) Argument Fields. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (Eds.) Readings in Argumentation (pp. 469–504). Berlin & New York: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Purpose, argument fields, and theoretical justification. Argumentation 22, 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. E.
(1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik A.
(1984/1978) An Introduction to Reasoning (2nd ed.). New York, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N.
(1996) Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Controversies 5). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wenzel, J. W.
(1982) On fields of argument as propositional systems. Journal o the f American Forensic Association, 18, 204–213.Google Scholar
Willard, C. A.
(1981) Argument fields: A Cartesian meditation. In George Ziegelmueller and Jack Rhodes (Eds.) Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second S.C.A./A.F.A. Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
(1982) Argument fields. In J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (Eds.) Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 24–77). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D.
(1992) Persistent questions in the theory of argument fields. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample & P. J. Benoit (Eds.) Readings in Argumentation (pp. 417–436). Berlin & New York: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar