Chapter published in:
Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 225254


Barth, Else M. and Krabbe, Erik C. W.
(1978) “Formal Dialectics: Instruments for the Resolution of Conflicts about Expressed Opinions.” Spektator, 7: 307–341.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Aditi
(2006) “Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences.” Discourse & Society, 17(2):173–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Alan
(1985) “A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63(1): 50–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) “The Ad Hominem.” In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 213–222. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Copi, Iving M.
(1972) Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
(2005) Theory and Practice for Spokespersons, Chengdu: Sichuan people′s Publishing House.Google Scholar
Dou, Wei L. and Zhang, Xiao Y.
(2008) “A Comparative Study of the Dodging Strategy Adopted by Chinese and American Spokespersons: The case of the North Korean nuclear issue.” Theory and Practice of Foreign Language Teaching, 4: 53–57.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H.
(2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Garssen, Bart and Meuffels, Bert
(2012) “The Disguised Abusive ad hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks.” Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3): 344–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, Rob
(1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1993) “The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century”. In Empirical logic and public debate: Essays in honour of Else M. Barth, ed. by Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renee J. Dalitz, and Pier A. Smit, 49–68. Amsterdam: RodopiGoogle Scholar
(2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guang, Ke
(2010) “Pragmatic Vagueness of Spokespersons in Sino-US Foreign Affairs’ Departments.” Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 13(2): 93–97.Google Scholar
(2013) “Construction of Spokesperson’s Discourse: An Approach of Western New Rhetoric.” Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology (Social Science Edition), 16(4): 153–156.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L.
(1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hong, Gang and Chen, Qian F.
(2011) “A Contrastive Study of the Refusal Strategies Employed by Chinese and American Spokespersons.” Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 43(2): 209–219.Google Scholar
Hu, Geng S. and Wang, Jing
(2001) “The Analysis of the Language Use in Sino-foreign Press Conferences.” Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 16(3): 83–88.Google Scholar
Kahane, Howard
(1973) Logic and philosophy. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Lan, Chun and Hu, Yi
(2014) “Pragmatic Analysis of Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s Dodge Answer.” Chinese Foreign Language, 6: 21–28.Google Scholar
Li, Xi G. and Sun, Jing W.
(2007) Course Book for Spokespersons. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John
(1960) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Ma, Zhi Q.
(2013) The Art of Language Communication. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House.Google Scholar
Minot, Walter S.
(1981) A Rhetorical View of Fallacies: Ad Hominem and Ad Populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 11(4): 222–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas
(1964) Introduction to Logic. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Tu, Guang J. & Gong, He
(2009) “A Political Rhetorical Analysis of Official Press Release on Tibet in China and America.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, 8: 32–37.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard
(1848) Elements of Logic. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Woods, John and Walton, Douglas N.
(1989) Fallacies: selected papers 1972–1982. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wu, Peng and Xiong, Ming H.
(2015) “Strategic Maneuvering: A Rhetorical Extension of Pragma-Dialectics.” Journal of Fujian Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 3: 64–69.Google Scholar
Wu, Peng and Zhu, Mi
(2015) “A Research on Pragma-dialectical Approach of Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Argumentative Replies at the Press Conference: Take Liu Weimin’s Reply about the Sino-US Tombarthite Trade Friction as Case Study.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, 9: 52–69.Google Scholar
Xiong, Yong H. and Peng, Xiao M.
(2009) “An Analysis on the Pragmatic Strategy of Diplomatic Language: A Study on the Remarks at Press Conference Held by Foreign Ministry spokesman.” Journal of Hunan Agricultural University, 3: 71–74.Google Scholar
Yang, Yuan and Tian, Tian
(2006) “An Analysis of the Use of Convert Evasion by China Foreign Ministry Spokesmen and Its Pragmatic Functions.” Hubei University of Technology, 6: 121–124.Google Scholar
Yang,Yao Z.
(2015) “Narrative Rhetoric Study on News Conference of China and Japan in the Case of Maritime Collision.” Journal of Zhongzhou University, 2: 89–92.Google Scholar
Yang, Zheng Q.
(2005) Theory and Practice for Spokespersons. Beijing: Communication University of China Press.Google Scholar
Yao, Xi S.
(2010) “Language Style of Spokesperson’s Presentation”. Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences), 1: 28–29.Google Scholar
Zhang, Tao F.
(2005) “Spokesperson: Skills Determine Success or Failure”. Decision, 4: 49–51.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yang
(2009) “On Spokesperson’s Language Style.” Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences), 6: 59–64.Google Scholar