Cover not available
Part of
Historical Pragmatics of Controversies: Case studies from 1600 to 1800
Gerd Fritz, Thomas Gloning and Juliane Glüer
[Controversies 14] 2018
► pp. 1–36

Chapter 1
The pragmatic organization of controversies

A historical perspective

Article outline
  • 1.The study of controversies within the framework of historical pragmatics
  • 2.Research on the history of controversies
  • 3.The pragmatic organization of controversies in a historical perspective
    • 3.1Parameters of the pragmatic organization of controversies
    • 3.2Text types, genres and media
    • 3.3Stages of a public controversy
    • 3.4Moves and strategies
    • 3.5Topic organization and knowledge management
    • 3.6Communication principles
    • 3.7The language of controversy
  • 4.Types of historical development in the pragmatic organization of controversies
  • 5.Conclusion
  • 6.A brief survey of the case studies presented in this volume
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.14.01fri
References (111)
References
Arnold, G. 1729. Unpartheyische Kirchen= und Ketzer=Historie, Vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments Biß auf das Jahr Christi 1688. […]. Frankfurt/M. [Reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms 1967].Google Scholar
Arnold, R. J. 2017. Musical Debate and Political Culture in France, 1700–1830. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Arnovick, L. K. 1999. Diachronic pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bach, U. 1997. Englische Flugtexte im 17. Jahrhundert. Historisch-pragmatische Untersuchungen zur frühen Massenkommunikation. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Barrotta, P. 2000. “Scientific dialectics in action. The case of Joseph Priestley”. In P. Machamer, M. Pera, and A. Baltas (eds), Scientific controversies. Philosophical and historical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 153–176.Google Scholar
Beetz, M. 1990. Frühmoderne Höflichkeit. Komplimentierkunst und Gesellschaftsrituale im altdeutschen Sprachraum. Stuttgart: Metzler.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. Harmondsworth: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Biagioli, M. 1993. Galileo Courtier. The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bramhall, J. 1658. “Castigations of Mr. Hobbes his last animadversions in the case concerning liberty and universal necessity; wherein all his exceptions about the controversy are fully satisfied”. London. In The works of The Most Reverend Father in God, John Bramhall, D.D. […]. Vol. IV. Oxford: Parker 1844, 197–505.Google Scholar
Bremer, K. 2005. Religionsstreitigkeiten. Volkssprachliche Kontroversen zwischen altgläubigen und evangelischen Theologen im 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. “Philologie und Polemik. Ein Forschungsabriss zum wissenschaftsgeschichtlichen Status der Kontroverse in der Frühen Neuzeit”. Geschichte der Germanistik. Mitteilungen. Doppelheft 29/30, 9–16.Google Scholar
Bremer, K. and Spoerhase, C. (eds). 2015. “Theologisch-polemische Sachen”. Gelehrte Polemik im 18. Jahrhundert. (Zeitsprünge. Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 19.) Frankfurt/M.: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. 2010. “Discourse markers”. In A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics. Vol. 8. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 285–314.Google Scholar
Bucher, H.-J. 2011. “Multimodalität – eine Universalie des Medienwandels: Problemstellungen und Theorien der Multimodalitätsforschung”. In H.-J. Bucher, T. Gloning, and K. Lehnen (eds), Neue Medien – neue Formate. Ausdifferenzierung und Konvergenz in der Medienkommunikation. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 41–79.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1989. “Controversies as quasi-dialogues”. In E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds), Dialoganalyse II. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 147–159.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998a. “Types of polemics and types of polemical moves”. In S. Čmejrková, J. Hoffmannová, O. Müllerová, and J. Světlá (eds), Dialoganalyse VI. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 15–33.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b. “The study of controversies and the theory and history of science”. Science in Context 11, 147–154.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal M. 2004. “On the uses of argumentative reason in religious polemics”. In T. L. Hettema and A. van der Kooij (eds), Religious Polemics in Context. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 3–20.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. and Chang, H.-L. (eds). 2007. Traditions of Controversy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. and Cremaschi, S. 1999. “The Malthus-Ricardo correspondence: Sequential structure, argumentative patterns, and rationality”. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1129–1172.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deicke, Aline J. E. (2017): “Networks of conflict: Analyzing the “culture of controversy” in polemical pamphlets of intra-protestant disputes (1548–1580)”. Journal of Historical Network Research 1, 71–105.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1988, Limited Inc. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Dieckmann, W. 2005. Streiten über das Streiten. Normative Grundlagen polemischer Meta-kommunikation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingel, I. 2013. “Zwischen Disputation und Polemik. ‘Streitkultur’ in den nachinterimistischen Kontroversen”. In H. P. Jürgens and T. Weller (eds), Streitkultur und Öffentlichkeit im konfessionellen Zeitalter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17–29.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H.van and Grootendorst, R. 1993. “The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century”. In E. C. W. Krabbe, R. J. Dalitz, and P. A. Smit (eds), Empirical Logic and Public Debate. Essays in Honour of Else M. Barth. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 49–68.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van and Houtlosser, P. (eds). 2002. Dialectic and Rhetoric. The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Snoek Henkemans, F. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis. Evaluation. Presentation. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, H. T. Jr and Caplan, A. L. (eds). 1987. Scientific Controversies. Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, T. H. Jr. and A. L. Caplan (eds). 1987. Scientific Controversies. Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Essig, R.-B. 2000. Der offene Brief. Geschichte und Funktion einer publizistischenForm. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.Google Scholar
Feinäugle, N. B. 1969. “Lessings Streitschriften. Überlegungen zu Wesen und Methode der literarischen Polemik”. Lessing Yearbook 1, 126–149.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. A. 1989. The Galileo Affair. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. M. 2002. The familiar letter in early modern English. A pragmatic approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freedman, J. S. 2010. “Published academic disputations in the context of other information formats utilized primarily in Central Europe (c. 1550–c. 1700)”. In M. Gindhart and U. Kundert (eds), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 89–128.Google Scholar
Frercks, J. 2006. “Die Lehre an der Universität Jena als Beitrag zur deutschen Debatte um Lavoisiers Chemie”. Gesnerus 63, 209–239.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, G. 2002. “Perpetuum mobile: the Leibniz-Papin controversy”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 33, 573–637.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fritz, G. 1982. Kohärenz. Grundfragen der linguistischen Kommunikationsanalyse. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
1995. “Topics in the history of dialogue forms”. In A. H. Jucker (ed), Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 469–498.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. “Text types in a new medium – the first newspapers (1609)”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2, 69–83.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. “Dialogical structures in 17th century controversies”. In M. Bondi and S. Stati (eds), Dialogue Analysis 2000. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 199–208.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005a. “On answering accusations in controversies”. Studies in Communication Sciences. Special Issue: Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction, 151–162.Google Scholar
2005b. “First person singular in 17th century controversies”. In P. Barrotta and M. Dascal (eds), Controversies and Subjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 235–250.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “Communication principles for controversies: A historical perspective”. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (eds), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 109–124.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Controversies”. In A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics. Handbook of Pragmatics, Vol. 8. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 451–481.Google Scholar
2011. “Wirbelstürme im digitalen Open-Peer-Review-Verfahren. Die Makarieva-Kontroverse in ‘Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics’ (2008/09) – eine Fallstudie”. In T. Gloning and G. Fritz (eds), Digitale Wissenschaftskommunikation. Formate und ihre Nutzung. Linguistische Untersuchungen. Bd. 3. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek, 143–174. [URL].Google Scholar
2012. “Kontroversen – Ein Paradigma für die Geschichte von Kommunikationsformen”. In P. Ernst (ed), Historische Pragmatik. Jahrbuch für germanistische Sprachgeschichte. Band 3. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 105–126.Google Scholar
2016a. “Zum Sprachgebrauch wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen im Deutschen um 1600”. In G. Fritz: Beiträge zur Texttheorie und Diskursanalyse. Linguistische Untersuchungen. Bd. 9. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek, 149–171. [URL].Google Scholar
2016b. “Zum Sprachgebrauch wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen im Deutschen um 1780”. In G. Fritz: Beiträge zur Texttheorie und Diskursanalyse. Linguistische Untersuchungen. Bd. 9. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek, 173–223. [URL].Google Scholar
2017. Dynamische Texttheorie. Zweite Auflage. Linguistische Untersuchungen. Bd. 5. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek. [URL]Google Scholar
Fritz, G. and Gloning, T. 2012. “Critique and controversy in digital scientific communication: New formats and their affordances”. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, (eds), Exploring Argumentative Contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 213–231.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gehema, J. A. 1688 [1980]. Grausame Medicinische Mord=Mittel […]. Brehmen: no publ. [Reprint Lindau: Antiqua-Verlag 1980].Google Scholar
Geuder, M. F. 1689 [1980]. Heilsame Medicinische Lebens=Mittel/Denen grausamen Medicinischen Mord=Mitteln […] Entgegen gesetzt […]. Ulm: Georg Wilhelm Kühn. [Reprint Lindau: Antiqua-Verlag 1980].Google Scholar
Gierl, M. 1997. Pietismus und Aufklärung. Theologische Polemik und die Kommunikationsreform der Wissenschaft am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Gloning, T. 1999. “The pragmatic form of religious controversies around 1600: A case study in the Osiander vs. Scherer & Rosenbusch controversy”. In A. H. Jucker, G. Fritz and F. Lebsanft (eds), Historical Dialogue Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–110.Google Scholar
2005. “Early Modern controversies and theories of controversy: The rules of the game and the role of the persons”. In P. Barrotta and M. Dascal (eds), Controversies and Subjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 263–281.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “August Hermann Franckes frühe Streitschriften 1689–1694. Kommunikationspraxis, Textgestalt, Wortgebrauch”. In I. Bons, T. Gloning, and D. Kaltwasser (eds), Fest-Platte für Gerd Fritz. [URL].Google Scholar
2008. Textgebrauch und textuelle Muster in der wissenschaftlichen Medizin des 19. Jahrhunderts. Exemplarische Untersuchungen und Forschungsaufgaben. In Gansel, Christina (ed), Textsorten und Systemtheorie. Göttingen: V & R unipress, 67–93.Google Scholar
Glüer, J. 2000. “Religiöses Streiten aus der Perspektive des Krieges – Beobachtungen zu einer protestantisch-jesuitischen Kontroverse im Vorfeld des Dreißigjährigen Krieges”. In B.-M. Schuster, J. Riecke, and G. Richter (eds), Raum, Zeit, Medium. Festschrift für Hans Ramge. Darmstadt: Hessische Historische Kommission, 373–399.Google Scholar
Goldenbaum, U. 2004. “Die öffentliche Debatte in der deutschen Aufklärung 1697–1796”. In U. Goldenbaum (ed), Appell an das Publikum. Die öffentliche Debatte in der deutschen Aufklärung 1697–1796. Vol. 1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1–118.Google Scholar
Goldgar, A. 1995. Impolite Learning. Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters 1680–1750. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grafton, A. 2009. “Chronology, controversy, and community in the Republic of Letters. The case of Kepler”. In A. Grafton: Worlds made by words. Scholarship and community in the modern West. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 114–136.Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Große Kracht, K. 2005. Die zankende Zunft. Historische Kontroversen in Deutschland nach 1945. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Habel, T. 2007. Gelehrte Journale und Zeitungen der Aufklärung. Bremen: edition lumière.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hettema, T. L. and van der Kooij, A. (eds). 2004. Religious Polemics in Context. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1654. “Of liberty and necessity: A treatise wherein all controversy concerning predestination, election, free-will, grace, merits, reprobation, etc. is fully decided and cleared. In answer to a treatise written by the Bishop of Londonderry, on the same subject”. London 1654. In The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; now first collected and edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. IV. London 1841, 229–278. [Reprint Aalen: Scientia 1962].Google Scholar
1658. “The questions concerning liberty, necessity, and chance, clearly stated and debated between Dr. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry, and Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. London 1656”. In The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; now first collected and edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. V. London 1841, 1–455. [Reprint Aalen: Scientia 1962].Google Scholar
Jardine, N. 1984. The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science. Kepler’s A defense of Tycho against Ursus. With Essays on its Provenance and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Fritz, G., and Lebsanft, F. (eds). 1999. Historical Dialogue Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kepler, J. 1609. Antwort Joannis Keppleri (…) Auff D. Helisai Röslini (…) Discurs Von heutiger zeit beschaffenheit (…). Prag: Sesse. In Kepler, J.: Gesammelte Werke. Band 4. Hg. von M. Caspar und F. Hammer. München 1941, 101–144.Google Scholar
1610. [1941]. “Tertivs interveniens. Das ist/Warnung an etliche Theologos, Medicos vnd Philosophos […]”. Frankfurt a. M.: Gottfried Tampach. In M. Caspar and F. Hammer (eds), Kepler, J.: Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 4. München: Beck 1941, 147–258.Google Scholar
Khorasani, M. M. 2008. The Development of Controversies: From the Early Modern Period to Online Discussion Forums. Bern/Berlin etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kneer, G. and Moebius, S. (eds). 2010. Soziologische Kontroversen. Beiträge zu einer anderen Geschichte der Wissenschaft vom Sozialen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Knoblauch, H. and Luckmann, T. 2004. “Genre analysis”. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff, and I. Steinke (eds), A Companion to Qualitative Research. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications, 303–307.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2002. Towards a history of English directives. In Andreas Fischer, Gunnel Tottie & Hans Martin Lehmann (eds), Text types and corpora. Studies in honour of Udo Fries. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 165–175.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lamont, W. (ed). 1998. Historical Controversies and Historians. London [etc.]: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, H. (ed). 2000. Historikerkontroversen. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. 2006. The Art of Controversies. Translated and edited, with an introductory essay and notes by M. Dascal with Q. Racionero and A. Cardoso. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lötscher, Andreas. 1981. Zur Sprachgeschichte des Fluchens und Beschimpfens im Schweizerdeutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 48, 145–160.Google Scholar
Marti, H. 2010. “Disputation und Dissertation. Kontinuität und Wandel im 18. Jahrhundert”. In M. Gindhart and U. Kundert (eds), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 63–85.Google Scholar
Mauser, W. and Saße, G. (eds). 1993. Streitkultur. Strategien des Überzeugens im Werk Lessings. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, E. 1987. “The political anatomy of controversy in the sciences”. In H. T. Engelhardt, Jr. and A. L. Caplan (eds), Scientific Controversies. Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 585–597.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mintz, S. I. 1969. The hunting of Leviathan: Seventeenth-century reactions to the materialism and moral philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muckenhaupt, M. 1986. Text und Bild. Grundfragen der Beschreibung von Text-Bild-Kommunikationen aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pahta, P. and Taavitsainen, I. 2010. “Scientific discourse”. In A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics. Vol. 8. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 549–586.Google Scholar
Paintner, U. 2010. “Aus der Universität auf den Markt. Die disputatio als formprägende Gattung konfessioneller Polemik im 16. Jahrhundert am Beispiel antijesuitischer Publizistik”. In M. Gindhart, and U. Kundert (eds),. Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 129–154.Google Scholar
Partington, J. R. and McKie, D. 1937–1939. “Historical studies on the Phlogiston theory”. Annals of Science 2: 1937, 361–404; 3: 1938, 1–58; 4: 1938, 337–371; 5: 1939, 113–149.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ratia, M. 2011. Texts “Con” and “Pro”. The Early Modern Controversy over Tobacco. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, Tome LXXXII). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Ratia, M. and Suhr, C. 2011. “Medical pamphlets: controversy and advertising”. In I. Taavitsainen and P. Pahta (eds), Medical Writing in Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 180–203.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, J. 2003. Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Regner, A. C. 2008. “Charles Darwin versus George Mivart. The role of polemics in science”. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (eds), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 51–75.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rey, A.-L. 2010. Leibniz and Papin: From public debate to the correspondence. In M. Das-cal (ed), The practice of reason. Leibniz and his controversies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 75–100.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. and Zambrano, N. 2001. “The bittersweet rhetoric of controversiality in 19th and 20th century French and English medical literature”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(1), 141–175.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schindler, A. and Schneider-Lastin, W. (eds). 2015. Die Badener Disputation von 1526. Kommentierte Edition des Protokolls. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Schwitalla, J. 1983. Deutsche Flugschriften 1460–1525. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. “The use of dialogue in early German pamphlets. On the constitution of public involvement in the Reuchlin-Pfefferkorn controversy”. In A. H. Jucker, G. Fritz, and F. Lebsanft (eds), Historical dialogue analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 111–137.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schröder, T. 1995. Die ersten Zeitungen. Textgestaltung und Nachrichtenauswahl. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Senderowicz, Y. M. 1998. “Facing the bounds of tradition: The Kant – Eberhard controversy.” Science in Context 11(2): 205–228.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Controversies and the Metaphysics of Mind. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. 1994. A Social History of Truth. Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spoerhase, C. 2007. “Kontroversen: Zur Formenlehre eines epistemischen Genres”. In R. Klausnitzer and C. Spoerhase (eds), Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie/Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse. Bern/Berlin etc.: Peter Lang, 49–92.Google Scholar
Thomasius, J. 1670. Erotemata Logica pro incipientibus. Acceßit pro adultis Processus disputandi. Lipsiae: Frommanni.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1978. “Invisible-hand explanations”. Synthese 39, 263–291.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vopel, H. 1972. Die Auseinandersetzung mit dem chemischen System Lavoisiers in Deutschland am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts. Dissertation zur Promotion A. Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.Google Scholar
Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. Arguments from Authority. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
1998. The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. C. W. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar