Part of
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional contextEdited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Argumentation in Context 11] 2017
► pp. 53–70
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Argumentation in Context 11] 2017
► pp. 53–70
Chapter 4The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiry
References
Anderson, C.
(1979) The place of principles in policy analysis. The American Political Science Review, 73(3), 711–723. 
Andone, C.
(2015a) Pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability. Argumentation, 29(1), 1–18.
(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.
Ball, W. J.
(1995) A pragmatic framework for the evaluation of policy arguments. Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2), 3–24.
Black, J., Hopper, M., & Band, C.
(2007) Making a success of principles-based regulation. Law and Financial Markets Review, 5, 191–206.
Cook, F. L., Barabas, J., & Page, I. B.
(2002) Invoking public opinion. Policy elites and social security. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 235–64.
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam,/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
European Ombudsman
(1996) Annual Report for 1995 (22.04.1996).
European Parliament
(2007) Final Report of the European Parliament on the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (A6-02032007, 23.05.2007).
Godden, D. M.
(2008) On common knowledge and ad populum. Acceptance as grounds for acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(2), 101–129.
Govier, T.
(2005) A practical study of argument. Toronto: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Harlow, C.
(2002) Accountability in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University.
Minot, W.
(1981) A rhetorical view of fallacies. Ad hominem and ad populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
, 11(4), 222–235.
Shackleton, M.
(1998) The European Parliament’s new committees of inquiry. Tiger or paper tiger? Journal of Common Market Studies, 36(1), 115–130.
Syrier, C.
(2013) The investigative function of the European parliament. Holding the EU executive to account by conducting investigations. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Toulmin, S., Rieke R. D., & Janik, A.
(1984) An introduction to reasoning. University of California: Macmillan.
Walton, D.
(1992) The place of emotion in argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
(1999) Appeal to popular opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Fetzer, Anita & Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka
2021. Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 520 ff. 
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018. Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33], ► pp. 149 ff.
[no author supplied]
2021. Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 247 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 may 2023. 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.