Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 17] 2019
► pp. 1–12

Chapter 1
A collection of studies of argumentation in practice

Published online: 23 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.01van
References (18)
References
Akkermans, A. Snoeck Henkemans, F., Labrie, N. H. M., Henselmans, I., & van Laarhoven, H. W. M. (2019). Characteristics of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer: An observational content analysis. This volume, Chapter 13.Google Scholar
Baker, M. J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2019). “Argumentexturing”: A framework for integrating theories of argumentation and learning. This volume, Chapter 11.Google Scholar
Bøe-Hansen, O., & Kvernbekk, T. (2019). Protection stories: A case of military propaganda? This volume, Chapter 15.Google Scholar
Brambilla, E. (2019). Prototypical argumentative patterns in activist discourse: The case of the Greenpeace Detox Campaign. This volume, Chapter 10.Google Scholar
Doury, M. (2019). Analyzing versus interpreting argumentation: A clear-cut opposition or two poles on a continuous line? This volume, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Drury, S. A. Mehltretter, & Herbeck, D. A. (2019). Understanding abusive argumentum ad hominem through rhetorical context: Donald Trump’s ad hominem in the 2016 Presidential Campaign. This volume, Chapter 8.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2019). And then you are left holding the baby! Strategic manoeuvring with the argumentum ad consequentiam. This volume, Chapter 17.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Taylor and Francis/Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J. (2019). Radically reframing the climate debate: The rhetorical strategies of The Hartwell Paper. This volume, Chapter 9.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (2019). Re-visiting Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech: Why argumentation critics need an audience-centered principle of rhetorical charity. This volume, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
Kloosterhuis, H., & Smith, C. (2019). Interpretative legal argumentation and the Rule of Law as the Rule of Reasons. This volume, Chapter 14.Google Scholar
Leal, F. (2019). On philosophical argumentation: Towards a pragma-dialectical solution of a puzzle. This volume, Chapter 16.Google Scholar
Mădroane, I. D. (2019). Media dispositives and the enactment of one-sided practical arguments: A framework for the analysis of advocacy campaigns. This volume, Chapter 3.Google Scholar
Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Schär, R., Greco, S., Convertini, J., Iannaccone, A., & Rocci, A. (2019). Shifting from a monological to a dialogical perspective on children’s argumentation: Lessons learned. This volume, Chapter 12.Google Scholar
Rowland, R. C. (2019). Argument and ultimate definition in Donald Trump’s worldview. This volume, Chapter 7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (2019). Strategic ambiguity as an argumentative resource: The case of Lyndon Johnson, 50 years later. This volume, Chapter 6.Google Scholar