Article published In:
Argumentative Style
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1] 2021
► pp. 4672
References (24)
References
Adam, Jean-Michel. 1992. Les textes: types et prototypes. Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris: Nathan Université.Google Scholar
Atayan, Vahram. 2004. Structures macroscopiques de l’argumentation dans l’analyse du discours – dialogicité, polyphonie et modificateurs réalisants. In Javier Suso López, Rodrigo López Carillo (éds.), Le français face aux défis actuels. Histoire, langue et culture, vol. I1: 531–543. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
. 2006. Makrostrukturen der Argumentation im Deutschen, Französischen und Italienischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2009. Fonctions argumentatives secondaires dans l’argumentation textuelle, ou pourquoi une ‘équipe surprise’ gagne (presque) toujours. Quelques considérations sur le renforcement et l’atténuation de l’argumentation en allemand, espagnol, français et italien. In Vahram Atayan, Daniela Pirazzini (éds.), Argumentation: théorie – langue – discours: 93–111. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang (Rhethos). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bal, Mieke. (1985) 1997. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of the Narrative, second edition. Toronto / Buffalo / London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation 331: 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Characterizing argumentative style: The case of KLM and the destructed squirrels. In R. Boogaart, H. Jansen, & M. van Leeuwen (Eds.), @Title. Argumentation Library.Google Scholar
. 2021. Examining Argumentative Style. Present volume. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van & Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gâță, Anca. 2020a. Argumentative Style in a Study on Climate Change Policies. Oral communication, International Conference on Argumentation and Public Policy „Reasons, Citizens and Institutions”, COST CA 17132, European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy analysis (APPLY), University of Wrocław, March 4–6.Google Scholar
. 2020b. Le « triangle » acte de langage – (proto)type textuel – (proto)type d’activité communicative dans l’analyse du discours argumentatif. Oral communication, 8th Scientific Conference of Doctoral Schools “Perspectives and challenges in doctoral research”, “Dunărea de Jos” University of Galați, June 18–19.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2017. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 1131: 16–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed. 2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(1): 65–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün. 2019. Environmental Argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(1): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Ryan T. & Silvia Pessoa. 2018. Corpus-driven study of information systems project reports, in Vaclav Brezina, Lynne Flowerdew (eds.), Learner Corpus Research: New Perspectives and Applications: 112–133. London / New York: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, Jérôme Jacquin. 2018. Introduction. In S. Oswald, T. Herman & J. Jacquin (eds.), Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations: 1–21. Amsterdam: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, I. A. 1936 [1965]. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Soledade, Marcin Lewinski & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün. 2019. Environmental manifestoes. Argumentative strategies in the ‘Ecomodernist Manifesto’. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(1): 12–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sales, Hazel E. 2006. Executive Summaries, in Professional Communication in Engineering: 214–240. Hampshire / New York: Mac Millan Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1): 119–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Source document for the analysis
Herold et al. 2019. EU Environment and Climate Change Policies – State of play, current and future challenges, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg. [Requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Co-authored by specialists of the (research and consultancy body) Öko Institute for Applied Ecology, Germany, [URL]] [URL]