Cover not available
Review published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 18:1 (2010) ► pp.181–187
Book review

Frans H. Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.). Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. xiii + 279 pp. ISBN 978-90-272-1986-5

Reviewed by
 | State University of Campinas — UNICAMP, Brazil
Published online: 9 April 2010
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18.1.09sig
References (19)
References
Dascal, M. 1994. “Epistemology, controversies, and pragmatics”. Downloaded July 2009 from [URL]
1996. “Types of polemics and types of polemical moves”. In S. Cmejrkova et al. (eds), Dialogue Analysis VI, Vol. 11. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 15–33.Google Scholar
2001. “How rational can a polemic across the analytic-continental ‘divide’ be?”. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9(3): 313–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2008. Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist?. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. and Cremaschi, S. 1999 “The Malthus-Ricardo correspondence: Sequential structure, argumentative patterns, and rationality”. Journal of Pragmatics 311:1129–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., and Henkemans, S. A. F. (eds). 2003. Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. 1994. Studies in Pragma-Diaclectics. Amsterdam: Vale Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Henkemans, S. A. F. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P. 2006. “Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation”. Argumentation 201: 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds). 2002. Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds). 2005. Argumentation in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S. 1999. “Argumentation as normative pragmatics”. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the ISSA, edited by F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 397–403.Google Scholar
2000. “Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics”. Argumentation 14(3): 261–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. H. 2000. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pera, M. 1994. The Discourses of Science. C. Botsford (trans). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pera, M. and Shea, W. R. (eds). 1991. Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1951. The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar