Part of
Historical Pragmatics of Controversies: Case studies from 1600 to 1800
Gerd Fritz, Thomas Gloning and Juliane Glüer
[Controversies 14] 2018
► pp. 209252
Aarsleff, H.
1982 “Leibniz on Locke on language”. In H. Aarsleff, From Locke to Saussure. Essays on the study of language and intellectual history. London: Athlone, 42–83.Google Scholar
Bolton, M. B.
2007 “Leibniz’s Nouveaux Essais: a contest by dialogue”. In P. Phemister and S. Brown (eds), Leibniz and the English-Speaking World. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 111–132.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bramhall, J.
1658Castigations of Mr. Hobbes his last animadversions in the case concerning liberty and universal necessity; wherein all his exceptions about the controversy are fully satisfied. By John Bramhall, DD. and Bishop of Derry. London 1658 In The works of The Most Reverend Father in God, John Bramhall, D.D. Sometime Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland. Vol. IV. Oxford: Parker 1844, 197–505.Google Scholar
Dascal, M.
1979 “Conversational relevance”. In A. Margalit (ed), Meaning and use. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Reidel, 153–174.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 “Controversies as quasi-dialogues”. In E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds), Dialoganalyse II. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 147–159.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 “The controversy about ideas and the ideas about controversy”. In F. Gil (ed), Controvérsias Científicas e Filosóficas. Lissabon: Editorial Fragmentos, 61– 100.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. and Firt, E.
2010 “Leibniz’s conciliatory approaches in scientific controversies”. In M. Dascal (ed), The practice of reason. Leibniz and his controversies. Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins, 137–167.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fritz, G.
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
2005 “First person singular in 17th century controversies”. In P. Barrotta and M. Dascal (eds), Controversies and subjectivity. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, 235–250.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Controversies”. In A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds), Handbook of Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 451–481.Google Scholar
2013Dynamische Texttheorie. Linguistische Untersuchungen Bd. 5. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek. [URL].Google Scholar
Gindhart, M. and Kundert, U.
(eds) 2010Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E. and Reidy, M. S.
2002Communicating science. The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I.
1988 “Locke, Leibniz, language and Hans Aarsleff”. Synthese 75, 135–153.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamou, Ph.
2011 “Leibniz lecteur de Locke sur la matière pensente”. In M. de Gaudemar and Ph. Hamou (eds), Locke et Leibniz. Deux stiles de rationalité. Hildesheim (etc.): Georg Olms Verlag, 131–154.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T.
1654Of 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 Reprint Aalen: Scientia 1962a,229–278.Google Scholar
1656The 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 Reprint Aalen: Scientia 1962b, 1–455.Google Scholar
Hyland, K.
1998Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, E. -M.
1999Textvernetzung in den Wissenschaften. Zitat und Verweis als Ergebnis rezeptiven, reproduktiven und produktiven Handelns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janich, N.
2008 “Intertextualität und Text(sorten)vernetzung”. In N. Janich (ed), Textlinguistik. 15 Einführungen., Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 177–196.Google Scholar
Jolley, N.
1984Leibniz and Locke: A study of the New Essays on Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W.
1962Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Sechste Reihe: Philosophische Schriften. Sechster Band: Nouveaux Essais. Hg von André Robinet und Heinrich Schepers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
1971Neue Abhandlungen über den menschlichen Verstand. Übersetzt, eingeleitet und erläutert von Ernst Cassirer. Hamburg: Felix Meiner. (Nachdruck der dritten Auflage von 1915.)Google Scholar
1996New essays on human understanding. Translated and edited by Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006The Art of controversies. Translated and edited, with an introductory essay and notes by Marcelo Dascal with Quintin Racionero and Adelino Cardoso. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Locke, J.
1700 Essai Philosophique Concernant l’Entendement Humain […] par M. Locke. Traduit de l’Anglois par M. Coste. […]. Amsterdam chez Henri Schelte.Google Scholar
1975An essay concerning human understanding. Edited with an introduction by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Parmentier, M.
2006 “Leibniz lecteur de Locke”. In F. Duchesneau and J. Griard (eds), Leibniz selon les Nouveaux Essais sur L’entendement humain Montréal/Paris: Collection Analytiques – 16, 11–18.Google Scholar
Raymond, J.
2003Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomasius, J.
1670 Erotemata Logica pro incipientibus. Acceßit pro adultis Processus disputandi. Lipsiae: Frommanni.Google Scholar