Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time

Accusation of inconsistency in response to criticism

| Universidade Nova de Lisboa
ISBN 9789027201744 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
ISBN 9789027263278 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
When political actors respond to criticism by pointing at an inconsistency in the critic’s position, a tricky political practice emerges. Turning the criticism back to the critic can be a constructive move that restores coherence, but it may also be a disruptive move that silences the critical voice and obstructs accountability. What distinguishes constructive cases from disruptive ones? This is the question this book sets out to answer.

The question is addressed by adopting an argumentative perspective. Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time focuses on the turnabout employed by the British Prime Minister in response to the Leader of the Opposition. The turnabout is characterised as a particular way of strategic manoeuvring. The manoeuvring is analysed and evaluated by combining pragmatic, dialectical and rhetorical insights with considerations from the realm of politics. The outcome is an account of the turnabout’s strategic functions and an assessment guide for evaluating its reasonableness.

The book will be of interest to advanced students and researchers of argumentation, discourse analysis, communication and rhetoric.

[Argumentation in Context, 15]  2018.  xi, 162 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Tricky turnabouts: The puzzle
Chapter 2. Confrontational manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency
Chapter 3. Prime Minister’s Question Time
Chapter 4. The strategic function of responding to criticism with accusations

of inconsistency in Question Time
Chapter 5. The reasonableness of responding to criticism with accusations

of inconsistency in Question Time
Chapter 6. Conclusion: Insights, limitations and challenges
“This sophisticated study shows that holding politicians accountable for their words and deeds is as much about how people argue as it is about what they argue. Mohammed focuses on charges of inconsistency in response to criticism as an especially problematic class of maneuvers in political debate: On the one hand, these charges may disarm inauthentic behavior by one's critics, and on the other, these same charges may be used (as "tricky turnabouts") to evade answering unwelcome questions. They may uphold important discourse norms, but they may also be misused to escape one's own accountability. Mohammed argues that not all inconsistency charges are fallacious: She shows that it is possible to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate charges of inconsistency, using concepts and methods from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. A broader (and incredibly timely) lesson is that politicians, like all who argue in good faith, should take care to enact and uphold norms of reasonableness even as they strive to advance their own positions.”
“A tension exists at the heart of contemporary political discourse, wherein the public are encouraged to judge a politician’s credibility as intimately related to their political consistency, and yet, when opponents point out inconsistencies between the words and deeds of a politician they have traditionally been accused of committing the tu quoque ad hominem fallacy. How to square this circle? When (if at all) is it reasonable to accuse a politician of inconsistency?

In this fascinating and erudite book, Dima Mohammed analyses the argumentative interactions of Prime Minister’s Question Time using the Pragma-Dialectical approach to argumentation. With a shrewd understanding of argumentative structure and texture, and contextualised with a thorough understanding of this argumentative activity type, the result is an analytically insightful and critically significant text. Thoroughly recommended for scholars of argumentation studies, discourse analysis and political science.”


Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M.
(2017) Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andone, C.
(2010) Maneuvering strategically in a political interview: Analyzing and evaluating responses to an accusation of inconsistency. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
(2013) Argumentation in political interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, J. C., & Ducrot, O.
(1976) L’argumentation dans la langue. Langages 42, 5–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1983) L’Argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar
(1992) The politics (T. A. Sinclair, Trans., T. J. Saunders, Ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M.
(1981) The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1982) From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Martens, J. L.
(1977) Argumentum ad hominem. Logique et Analyse: Nouvelle Serie, 20, 76–96.Google Scholar
Beard, A.
(2000) The language of politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brinton, A.
(1985) A rhetorical view of the ad hominem . Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63, 50–63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camper, M.
(2017) Arguing over texts: The rhetoric of interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C.
(2002) Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S., & Heritage, J.
(2002) The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air (Vol. 15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T.
(1986) Goals in discourse. In D. G. Ellis and W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes (pp. 257–74). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1990) Multiple goals in discourse: An epilogue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1), 16–170.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B. J., & Meuffels, B.
(2009) Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1982) Arguing and convincing. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 1–24.Google Scholar
(1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Fortis Publications.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992a) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1992b) Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation, 6(2), 141–159.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Argumentum ad hominem: A pragma-dialectical case in point. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 223–228). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S.
(1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(1999) Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1/4, 479–497.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002a) Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. In G. T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing communication & culture: Selected papers from the twelfth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 67–75). Washington DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
(2002b) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: A delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003a) The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Argumentation, 17(4), 387–403.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003b) More about fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The case of tu quoque . In H. V. Hansen, Ch. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its applications: Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument. [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
(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 argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 75–84). Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
(2006) Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20(4), 381–392.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007a) Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 375–380). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2007b) Reconnecting dialectic and rhetoric: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Anthropology and Philosophy, 8(1–2), 49–67.Google Scholar
(2008) Within the bounds of reason: Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. In K. Korta & J. Garmendia (Eds.), Meaning, intentions and argumentation (pp. 1–27). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2009) Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. J. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 3–14). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2007a) Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007b) Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. In J. A. Blair, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground: Proceedings of the OSSA Conference 2007. [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M.
(1984) Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N.
(2012) Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A.
(2002) ‘Put bluntly, you have something of a credibility problem’. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 173–202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. B.
(1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of argument: A theory of structure. Berlin: Foris/London: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J.
(1970) Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 13(1–4), 360–375.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C. L.
(1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen – ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Harris, S.
(1986) Interviewers’ questions in broadcast interviews. In J. Wilson and B. Crow (Eds.), Belfast working papers in language and linguistics (Vol. 8, pp. 50–85). Jordanstown: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
Hay, C.
(2007) Why we hate politics? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, D.
(2007) Is there an argumentum ad hominem fallacy? In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson (pp. 187–200). Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
House of Commons Information Office
(2005) Parliamentary Questions. Factsheet 1. Retrieved from http://​www​.parliament​.uk​/documents​/upload​/p01​.pdf
House of Commons official report
(1997) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 1997: Debate on arrangements of Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 781, cc. 796–797). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm199697​/cmhansrd​/vo970204​/debtext​/70204​-04​.htm#70204​-04​_dpthd0
(2002) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Feb 2002: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 379, cc. 853–854). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200102​/cmhansrd​/vo020206​/debtext​/20206​-03​.htm
(2004) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 May 2004: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 421, cc. 970–975). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200304​/cmhansrd​/vo040519​/debtext​/40519​-03​.htm#40519​-03​_sbhd1
(2006) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Oct 2006: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 450, cc. 866–877). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200506​/cmhansrd​/vo061018​/debtext​/61018​-0002​.htm#06101834000008
(2008a) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Jan 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 471, cc. 308). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200708​/cmhansrd​/cm080130​/debtext​/80130​-0002​.htm
(2008b) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Feb 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 472, cc. 340). Retrieved from https://​publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200708​/cmhansrd​/cm080220​/debtext​/80220​-0002​.htm
(2008c) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Mar 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 472, cc. 1740). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200708​/cmhansrd​/cm080305​/debtext​/80305​-0003​.htm
(2008d) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Oct 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 481, cc. 885–886). Retrieved from https://​publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200708​/cmhansrd​/cm081029​/debtext​/81029​-0002​.htm
(2008e) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 05 Nov 2008 (pt 0002): Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 482, cc. 243–4). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200708​/cmhansrd​/cm081105​/debtext​/81105​-0002​.htm#column​_243
(2008f) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Nov 2008 (pt 0002): Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 483, cc. 228–229). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200708​/cmhansrd​/cm081119​/debtext​/81119​-0002​.htm#column​_225
(2010a) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 October 2010: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 516, cc. 420–431). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm201011​/cmhansrd​/cm101013​/debtext​/101013​-0001​.htm#10101328000008
(2010b) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Nov 2010: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 517, cc. 913–923). Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm201011​/cmhansrd​/cm101103​/debtext​/101103​-0001​.htm#10110358000010
(2015) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Jan 2015: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 590, cc. 262–272). Retrieved from https://​publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm201415​/cmhansrd​/cm150107​/debtext​/150107​-0001​.htm#15010745000006
(2016) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Oct 2016: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 615, cc. 293–306). Retrieved from https://​hansard​.parliament​.uk​/Commons​/2016​-10​-12​/debates​/B8EB3AA6​-374E​-40CB​-8675​-9A0A8A9CC75C​/PrimeMinister
(2017) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Oct 2017: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 629, cc. 321–335). Retrieved from https://​hansard​.parliament​.uk​/Commons​/2017​-10​-11​/debates​/853E0598​-0872​-46DA​-8734​-360429BA8232​/PrimeMinister
House of Commons Procedure Committee
(2002) Parliamentary Questions: Third report of session 2001–02. Retrieved from http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm200102​/cmselect​/cmproced​/622​/622​.pdf
Jack, M., Hutton, M., Johnson, C., Millar, D., Patrick, S., & Sandal, L.
(Eds) (2011) Erskine May Erskine May: Parliamentary practice. 24th edition. London: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.
(1980) Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S., Jackson, S., & Stearns, S.
(1991) Digressions in argumentative discourse: Multiple goals, standing concerns, and implicatures. In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 43–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1990) Inconsistent commitments or commitment to inconsistencies. Informal Logic, 7(1), 33–42.Google Scholar
(1992) So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation, 6(2), 271–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) The problem of retraction in critical discussion. Synthese, 127, 141–159.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Laar, J. A. van
(2006) Don’t say that. Argumentation, 20(4), 495–510.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Pragmatic inconsistency and credibility. Argumentation, 21(3), 317–334.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5), 365–399.Google Scholar
(1992) Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M.
(2014) Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 193–218.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
(2014) Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
(2015) Tweeting the Arab spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
(2016) Argumentation theory. In K. B. Jensen, R. Craig, J. Pooley & E. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy (pp. 1–15). New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Oswald, S.
(2013) When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 164–177.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, D.
(2007) Towards a pragma-dialectical approach to negotiation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 975–982). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2013) Pursuing multiple goals in European Parliamentary debates: EU immigration policies as a case in point. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 47–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) ‘The revolution must continue’: Strategic maneuvering in post-Mubarak Egypt. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2016a) Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation, 30(3), 221–245.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Not just rational, but also reasonable: Critical testing in the service of external purposes of public political arguments. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 499–514). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
(2016c) What’s in a good argument about evaluative claims? Argumentation in accountability practices. In L. Benacquista & P. Bondy (Eds.), Argumentation, objectivity and bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–23 May 2016 (pp. 1–14). Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
(2016d) ‘It is true that security and Schengen go hand in hand’: Strategic manoeuvring in the multi-layered activity type of European Parliamentary debates. In R. von Borg (Ed.), Dialogues in Argumentation (pp. 232–266). Windsor Studies in Argumentation.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Arguing inter-issue in public political arguments. In S. Oswald & Maillat, D. (Eds.). Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. II, 509–524). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Mohammed, D., & Zarefsky, D.
(2011) Pragma-dialectical analysis of rhetorical texts: The case of Barack Obama in Cairo. In Feteris et al. (Eds.), Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, R.
(2000) ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept. Public Administration, 78(3), 555–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nevin, B.
(1994) Quandary/abusive questions: The linguist discussion. List, 5, 754.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pérez de Ayala, S.
(2001) FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs? Politeness in Question Time. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 143–169.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plantin, C.
(1990) Essais sur l’argumentation: introduction linguistique à l’étude de la parole argumentative. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R.
(1971) The open society and its enemies (5th ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
(1972) Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(1974) Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rees, M. A. van
(2009) Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, R., & Walters, R.
(2006) How Parliament works. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Schedler, A.
(1999) Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 333–350). Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M.
(2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stojanovic, I.
(2017) Evaluative Adjectives and Evaluative Uses of Ordinary Adjectives. In M. Otake, S. Kurahashi, Y. Ota, K. Satoh & D. Satoh (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10091. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. N.
(1973) Practical reasoning in natural language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Tindale, C. W.
(2007) Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, K.
(1984) The effect of multiple goals on conversational relevance and topic shift. Communication Monographs, 51, 274–287.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, K., & Coupland, N.
(1990) Multiple goals in discourse: An overview of issues. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1), 1–13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
UK Parliament Web Site
Visser, J. C.
(2016) A dialogue game for critical discussion: Groundwork in the formalisation and computerisation of the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication).Google Scholar
Walton, D. N.
(1987) The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation, 1, 317–331.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation, 13(1), 53–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Werlich, E.
(1975) Typologie der texte. Heidelberg, Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.
(1990) Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woods, J.
(2007) Lightening up on the ad hominem. Informal Logic, 27(1), 109–134.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, D.
(2008) Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation, 22, 317–330.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of Issues in Adult-Children Discussions [Argumentation in Context, 19], Crossref logo
Laar, Jan Albert van & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2019. Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1  pp. 91 ff. Crossref logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed
2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1  pp. 65 ff. Crossref logo
Mohammed, Dima
2019. Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?. Argumentation 33:3  pp. 307 ff. Crossref logo
Shaw, Sylvia
2020.  In Women, Language and Politics, Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 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.

Subjects & Metadata

Communication Studies

Communication Studies
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018033780 | Marc record