Miscellaneous in:
Argumentative Style: A pragma-dialectical study of functional variety in argumentative discourse
Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Sara Greco, Ton van Haaften, Nanon Labrie, Fernando Leal and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 20] 2022
► pp. 315–322

References

This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Aakhus, M.
(2003) Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3), 265–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andone, C.
(2017) The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 53–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, P.
(1967) The theory of democratic elitism: A critique. Boston: Little and Brown.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(2009) Register, genre, and style. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Billig, M.
(2008) The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society 18(6), 783–800. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Writing social psychology: Fictional things and unpopulated texts. British Journal of Social Psychology 50(1), 4–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bijnen, E. S., van, & Greco, S.
(2018) Divide to unite: Making disagreement explicit in dispute mediation. Journal of argumentation in context 7(3), 285–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bijnen, E. S. van
(2020) Common ground in conflict mediation. An argumentative perspective. Doctoral dissertation USI - Università della Svizzera italiana.Google Scholar
Bolman, L. G., & T. E. Deal
(1991) Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. (1st ed. 1984) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Boudon, R.
(2002) Sociology that really matters. European Sociological Review 18(3), 371–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. R.
(1994) Smoke and mirrors. How science reflects reality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P.
(2005) The promise of mediation. The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Caffi, C.
(2007) Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Claes, P., & Hulsens, E.
(2015) Groot retorisch woordenboek. Lexicon van stijlfiguren [Grand rhetorical dictionary. Lexicon of figures of style]. Nijmegen: van Tilt.Google Scholar
Coleman, J.
(1989) Rationality and the justification of democracy. In: G. Brennan & L. E. Lomansky (Eds.), Politics and process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, R., Jacobs, F., & Nevillle, D.
(2016) The European Parliament. London: John Harper.Google Scholar
Coser, L.
(1959) The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A.
(1971) Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2010) Strategic maneuvering. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 2. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Democracy and argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp.  827–841). Cham (Switzerland) etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 7–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017b) The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 157–180). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Argumentation theory. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham (Switzerland): Springer. Argumentation Library 33. Crossref. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation 33(2), 153–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2021) Examining argumentative style: A new theoretical perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10(1), 8–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B.
(2010) In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia 7(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter. [Originally Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris.] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.
(1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2002) Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2007) Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library12.Google Scholar
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., & Barry, M.
(2012) Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine 27(10), 1361–1367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, J.
(2011) Rhetorical style. The uses of language in persuasion. New York etc.: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feteris, E. T.
(2017) The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 71–91). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) The role of the judge in legal proceedings. A pragma-dialectical analysis. In E. T. Feteris, A pragma-dialectical approach of legal argumentation. Selected essays (pp.  27–41). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B.
(1991) Getting to yes. Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Fleck, L.
(1936) The problem of epistemology [in Polish]. English translation in R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp.  79–112). Dordrecht: Reidel 1986.Google Scholar
Foster, K.
(2003) A study in mediation styles: A comparative analysis of evaluative and transformative styles. Available at: https://​www​.mediate​.com​/articles​/fosterk1​.cfm (last visited July 2021).
Franck, L. S., & O'Brien, K.
(2019) The evolution of family-centered care: From supporting parent-delivered interventions to a model of family integrated care. Birth Defects Research 111(15), 1044–1059. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franck, L. S., Waddington, C., & O’Brien, K.
(2020) Family integrated care for preterm infants. Critical Care Nursing Clinics 32(2), 149–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garssen, B.
(2017a) Argumentative patterns with argumentation by example in legislative debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp.  109–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in context 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garssen
(2017b) The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp.  31–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garssen, B.
(2022) The argumentative style of the opening speech in a debate in the European Parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11(1), 47–68.Google Scholar
de Girolamo, D.
(2020) The opening statement in mediation: A Goffman analysis. In M. F. Moscati, M. Palmer, & M. Roberts (Eds.), Comparative dispute resolution (pp.  103–115). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1981) Typology and functional domains. Studies in Language 5(2), 163–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco, S.
(2018) Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique, 2018, 68, 7–15. Available at https://​doc​.rero​.ch​/record​/322610​/files​/Greco​_Sara​_-​_Designing​_dialogue​_argumentation​_as​_conflict​_20180629​.pdf.Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, S.
(2011) Argumentation in dispute mediation. A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco, S., & Jermini-Martinez Soria, Ch.
(2021) Mediators’ reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10(1), 73–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haaften, T. van & Leeuwen, M. van
(2021) On the relation between argumentative style and linguistic style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10(1), 97–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J.
(1971) Knowledge and human interests. Transl. by J. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., Carer, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J. M.
(2010) Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest. Development of the flirting styles inventory. Communication Quarterly 58, 365–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harmon, J. E., & Gross, A. G.
(2007) The scientific literature: A guided tour. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haynes, J. M., & Haynes, G. L.
(1989) Mediating divorce. Casebook of strategies for successful family negotiations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Herring, J.
(2018) Law Express: Medical Law (Revision Guide). London: Pearson UK.Google Scholar
Hoppmann, M.
(2017) Competition and conflict between communicative norms. Is reasonable to be polite? Journal of Argumentation in Context 6(2), 220–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ICOR
(2013) Transcription conventions of CLAPI, http://​clapi​.icar​.cnrs​.fr/ (last visited March 2021).
International Dyslexia Association
(2020) Dyslexia basics. Available at https://​dyslexiaida​.org​/dyslexia​-basics/.
Jamieson, K. H.
(1988) Eloquence in an electronic age. The transformation of political speechmaking. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janier, M., & Reed, C.
(2017a) Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse. Argumentation 31(1), 45–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017b) I didn’t say that! Uses of SAY in mediation discourse. Discourse Studies 19(6), 619–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jasinski, J.
(2001) Sourcebook on rhetoric. Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage.Google Scholar
Jermini-Martinez Soria, C.
(2021) Reframing as an argumentative competence in dispute mediation. Doctoral dissertation USI – Università della Svizzera italiana. Available at: https://​doc​.rero​.ch​/record​/330915.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
(2004) Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Konrad, T. R., Link, C. L., Shackelton, R. J., Marceau, L. D., von Dem Knesebeck, O., Siegrist, J., & McKinlay, J. B.
(2010) It’s about time: Physicians’ perceptions of time constraints in primary care medical practice in three national healthcare systems. Medical Care 48(2), pp.95–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kressel, K.
(2020) Mediator styles. In M. F. Moscati, M. Palmer, & M. Roberts (Eds.), Comparative dispute resolution (pp.  217–230). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labrie, N. H. M.
(2014) For the sake of argument. Considering the role, characteristics, and effects of argumentation in general practice consultation. Doctoral dissertation USI – Università della Svizzera italiana.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
(2014) Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation 28(2), 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linz, J.
(1990) Transitions to democracy. Washington Quarterly, Summer, 143–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lodewick, H. J. M. F.
(1964) Literaire kunst [The art of literature]. [15th ed.] ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Malmberg. (1st ed. 1955.)Google Scholar
McCorkle, S., & Reese, M. J.
(2019) Mediation theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D.
(2001) Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science 12 (4), 269–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C.
(2005) Roots and inspirations. A brief history of the foundations of dispute resolution. In M. L. Moffitt, & T. V. Bordone (Eds.) The handbook of dispute resolution (pp.  13–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Moore, C. W.
(2014) The mediation process. Practical strategies for resolving conflict (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Morton, J.
(2004) Understanding developmental disorders. A causal modelling approach. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
National Health Services
(2021) Shared decision-making. Retrieved July 2021 via https://​www​.england​.nhs​.uk​/shared​-decision​-making/
Palmieri, R., & Mazzali-Lurati, S.
(2017) Practical reasoning in corporate communication with multiple audiences. Journal of Argumentation in Context 6(2), 167–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pan, D.
(2018) “Doctors killed my baby”: Argumentative patterns in medical disputes in China. Health Communication 33(10), 1267–1276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pan, D., Chen, Y., & Ju, S.
(2018) Argumentative patterns in Chinese medical consultations. Argumentation 32(1), 37–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The new rhetoric. Treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame-London: University of Notre Dame Press. [English transl. of Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958) La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.]Google Scholar
Platt, J. R.
(1964) Strong inference. Science 146 (3642), 347–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Princen, T.
(1992) Intermediaries in international conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., & Holmer, M.
(1992) Framing, reframing and issue development. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp.  128–155). Newbury Park etc.: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rees, M. A. van
(1992) The use of language in conversation. An introduction to research in conversation analysis. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S.
(2019) Inference in argumentation. A topics-based approach to argument schemes. Cham: Springer. Argumentation Library 34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roter, D., & Hall, J. A.
(2006) Doctors talking with patients/Patients talking with doctors: Improving communication in medical visits. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Sander, F. E. A.
(1979) Varieties of dispute processing. In A. L. Levin, & R. R. Wheeler (Eds.), The Pound Conference. Perspectives on justice in the future. Proceedings of the National conference on the causes of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice (pp.  65–87). St. Paul (Minnesota): West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Schmitt, C.
(1988) The crisis of parliamentary democracy [1st ed. 1923] Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A.
(1950) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper Bros.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1975) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://​hdl​.handle​.net​/11299​/185220. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2017) The role of pragmatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 93–108). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. S., & Mohammed, D.
(2012) Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making. Journal of Argumentation in Contex 1(1), 19–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Susskind, L.
(2010) Looking at negotiation and dispute resolution through a CA/DA lens. Negotiation Journal 26(2), 163–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China
(2015) Workbook for governmental press conferences. Beijing: Wu Zhou Publishing House.Google Scholar
Traverso, V.
(1999) L’analyse des conversations [The analysis of conversations]. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Tseronis, A.
(2017) Analysing multimodal argumentation within the pragma-dialectical framework. Strategic manoeuvring in the front covers of The Economist. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Wu (Eds. 2017), Contextualizing pragma-dialectics (pp.  335–359). Amsterdam-Philadelphia. John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uzqueda, A., & Frediani, P.
(2002) La conciliazione. Guida per la soluzione negoziale delle controversie [Conciliation. A guide for a negotiated solution of controversies]. Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Wales, K.
(1991) A dictionary of stylistics. London-New York: Longman. (1st ed. 1989.)Google Scholar
Walter, A. S.
(2014) Choosing the enemy: Attack behaviour in a multiparty system. Party Politics 20(3), 311–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walter, A. S., & Brug, W. van der
(2013) When the gloves come off: Inter-party variation in negative campaigning in Dutch elections, 1981–2010. Acta Politica 48(4), 367–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walter, A. S., Brug, W. van der, & Praag, P. van
(2014) When the stakes are high: Party competition and negative campaigning. Comparative Political Studies 47(4), 550–573. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whately, R.
(1828[1963]) Elements of rhetoric. London/Oxford: J. Murray & J. F. Parker. [Reprint D. Ehninger (Ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press].Google Scholar
White, S., Milne, E., Rosen S., Hansen, P., Swettenham, J., Frith, U., & Ramus, F.
(2006) The role of sensorimotor impairments in dyslexia: A multiple case study of dyslexic children. With commentaries by D. V. M. Bishop, U. Goswami, R. I. Nicholson, A. J. Fawcett, & P. Tallal, and a reply by F. Ramus, S. White, & U. Frith. Developmental Science 9 (3) 237–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wu P.
(2017) Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks at press conferences of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Wu (Eds. 2017), Contextualizing pragma-dialectics (pp.  225–254). Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019a) Confrontational maneuvering by dissociation in spokespersons argumentative replies at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation 33(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019b) “I have no comment”: Confrontational maneuvering by declaring a standpoint unallowed or indisputable at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation 33(4), 489–519. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2021) The uncompromising confrontational argumentative style of the spokespersons’ replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10(1), 26–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y.
(2009) On spokesperson’s language style. Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences) 6, 59–64.Google Scholar
Ziegler, A., Best, K.-H., & Altmann, G.
(2002) Nominalstil. Etc: Empirische Text- und Kulturforschung 2, 72–85.Google Scholar