Chapter published in:
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Argumentation in Context 11] 2017
► pp. 53–70

The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiry

Published online: 14 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.04and
References

References

Anderson, C.
(1979) The place of principles in policy analysis. The American Political Science Review, 73(3), 711–723. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andone, C.
(2015a) Pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability. Argumentation, 29(1), 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité par des hommes politiques [Commitment and non-commitment in political appeals to the majority]. Argumentation et analyse du discours, 16.Google Scholar
Ball, W. J.
(1995) A pragmatic framework for the evaluation of policy arguments. Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2), 3–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Black, J., Hopper, M., & Band, C.
(2007) Making a success of principles-based regulation. Law and Financial Markets Review, 5, 191–206.Google Scholar
Cook, F. L., Barabas, J., & Page, I. B.
(2002) Invoking public opinion. Policy elites and social security. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 235–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam,/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B. J.
(2013) Argumentative patterns in discourse. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 22–26, 2013, 1–15. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser
(2008) Rhetoric in a dialectical framework: Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. In E. Weigand, (Ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric (pp. 133–152): Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
European Ombudsman
(1996) Annual Report for 1995 (22.04.1996).Google Scholar
European Parliament
(2007) Final Report of the European Parliament on the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (A6-02032007, 23.05.2007).Google Scholar
Godden, D. M.
(2008) On common knowledge and ad populum. Acceptance as grounds for acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(2), 101–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Govier, T.
(2005) A practical study of argument. Toronto: Thomson/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Harlow, C.
(2002) Accountability in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Minot, W.
(1981) A rhetorical view of fallacies. Ad hominem and ad populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly , 11(4), 222–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shackleton, M.
(1998) The European Parliament’s new committees of inquiry. Tiger or paper tiger? Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(1), 115–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Syrier, C. (2013) The investigative function of the European parliament. Holding the EU executive to account by conducting investigations. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S., Rieke R. D., & Janik, A.
(1984) An introduction to reasoning. University of California: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Walton, D.
(1992) The place of emotion in argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Appeal to popular opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018.  In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33], ► pp. 149 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.