Chapter published in:
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. 157172


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
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. Jacobs, S.
(1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J.
(2000) Comments on [Jacobs’] ‘Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics’. Argumentation, 14, 287–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Henry W. Johnstone’s still unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 21, 41–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Designing issues. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(1), 40–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Innocenti, B.
(2011) Countering questionable tactics by crying foul. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 178–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Shaming in and into argumentation. Argumentation, 21, 379–395. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S.
(2008) Predicaments of politicization in the debate over abstinence-only sex education. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 215–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S.
(2000) Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14, 261–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, H. W., Jr.
(2007) The philosophical basis of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 40(1), 15–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, F. J.
(1998) Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 97–118). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) What are we learning about the arguers’ probative obligations. In S. Jacobs (Ed.), Concerning argument (pp. 1–31). Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
Leff, M.
(2000) Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation, 14, 241–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Rhetoric and dialectic in Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 255–268). Springer, Dordrecht. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
(2014) Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, M.
(2014) Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. WIREs Climate Change 5, 809–823. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paglieri, F.
(2009) Ruinous arguments: Escalation of disagreement and the dangers of arguing. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
(2013) Choosing to argue: Towards a theory of argumentative decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 153–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) On the rationality of argumentative decisions. In F. Bex, F. Grasso, N. Green, F. Paglieri, & C. Reed (Eds.), Argument technologies: Theory, analysis, and applications. Milton Keynes: College Publications.Google Scholar
Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C.
(2010) Why argue? Towards a cost–benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 71–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson, & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center
(2014) Political polarization in the American public: How increasing ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affect politics, compromise and everyday life. Retrieved from http://​www​.people​-press​.org​/2014​/06​/12​/political​-polarization​-in​-the​-american​-public/Google Scholar
Prins, G., & Rayner, S.
(2007) The wrong trousers: Radically rethinking climate policy. Retrieved from http://​eureka​.sbs​.ox​.ac​.uk​/66/Google Scholar
Prins, G., Cook, M., Green, C., Hulme, M., Korhola, A., Pielke, R. A. Jr.,von Storch, H.
(2009) How to get climate policy back on course. Retrieved from http://​eureka​.sbs​.ox​.ac​.uk​/92​/1​/Climate policy back on course​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Prins, G., Galiana, I., Green, C., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Korhola, A.,Tezuka, H.
(2010) The Hartwell paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. Retrieved from https://​eprints​.lse​.ac​.uk​/27939​/1​/HartwellPaper​_English​_version​.pdf
Rescher, N.
(1998) The role of rhetoric in rational argumentation. Argumentation, 12, 315–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Uzelgun, M. A.
(2019) Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(1), 12–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheufele, D.
(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 103–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shellenberger, M., & Nordhaus, T.
(2004) The death of environmentalism: Global warming politics in a post-environmental world. Retrieved from http://​www​.thebreakthrough​.org​/images​/Death​_of​_Environmentalism​.pdfGoogle Scholar