Rhetoric

Manfred Kienpointner
Table of contents

Rhetoric is a discipline with a long tradition: about 2500 years have gone by since it was first established in ancient Greece. Within this time span, rhetoric has been the subject of approval and condemnation.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Anscombre, J. & O. Ducrot
1983 L’argumentation dans la langue. Mardaga. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antos, G.
1982 Grundlagen einer Theorie des Formulierens. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. A. & W. U. Dressler
1981 Introduction to text linguistics. Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Billig, M.
1987 Arguing and thinking. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J.
1988 Ethnolinguistics and Kiswahili rhetoric. Working Papers in Kiswahili 3: 1–50.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. & J. Culpeper
(eds.) 2008 Impoliteness: Eclecticism and diaspora. Special Issue of Journal of Politeness Research 4(2). Google Scholar
Braet, A.
1984 De klassieke statusleer in modern perspectief. Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. & O. Ducrot
1987 Politeness. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curtius, E. R.
1948 Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. Francke.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T.A . & W. Kintsch
1983 Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dubois, J.
1970 Rhétorique générale. Larousse.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O.
1972 Dire et ne pas dire. Hermann.Google Scholar
1980 Les mots du discours. Minuit.Google Scholar
Eco, U.
1972 Einführung in die Semiotik. Fink.Google Scholar
Eggs, E.
1984 Die Rhetorik des Aristoteles. Lang.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H.
(ed.) 2002 Advances in pragma-dialectics. SicSat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
2010 Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. & R. Grootendorst
1984 Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Foris.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2004 A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. & P. Houtlosser
(eds.) 2000 The relation between dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation 14(3) (Special issue).Google Scholar
(eds.) 2006 Perspectives on strategic maneuvering. Special Issue of Argumentation 20(4). Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst & F. Snoeck Henkemans
1996 Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. , R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard
(eds.) 1987 Argumentation. Foris.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F.H . & P. Houtlosser
(eds.) 1991 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Argumentation. Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J.
2009 Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis. In F. H. Van Eemeren (ed.) Examining argumentation in context: 191–220. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L.
1957 A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeley, A. J.
1986 Argumentation and debate. Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Galtung, J.
1985 Struktur, kultur und intellektueller Stil. In A. Wierlacher (ed.) Das Fremde und das Eigene: 151–193. Iudicum Verlag.Google Scholar
Garssen, B.
1997 Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. IFOTT.Google Scholar
Geissner, H.
(ed.) 1978 Rhetorik. Bayrischer Schulbuchverlag.Google Scholar
1988 Sprechwissenschaft. Scriptor.Google Scholar
Genette, G.
1972 La rhétorique restreinte. In Figures III: 21–40. Seuil.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. A.
2003 Let’s Talk: Emotion and the Pragma-Dialectic Model. In F. H. Van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, Ch. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.): Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation: 365–368. SicSat.Google Scholar
Govier, T.
1987 Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1975 Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: 41–58. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J.
1981 Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 2 vols. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Haverkamp, A.
(ed.) 1983 Theorie der Metapher. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, R.
1989 Argumentation, information and interaction. University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., I. L. Janis & H. H. Kelley
1957 Communication and persuasion. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
1971 Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In Selected writings, vol. 2: 239–259. Mouton.Google Scholar
Kibédi-Varga, A.
1970 Rhétorique et littérature. Didier.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M.
1983 Argumentationsanalyse. Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut Innsbruck.Google Scholar
1992 Alltagslogik. Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
1996 Vernünftig argumentieren. Rowohlt.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1999 Ideologies of politeness. Pragmatics 9(1) (Special issue). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, J.
1987 Die konklusiven Sprechhandlungen. Gunter Narr. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopperschmidt, J.
1976 Allgemeine Rhetorik. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
1989 Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse. Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1990 Rhetorik, vol. 1. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1991 Rhetorik, vol. 2. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
2000 Argumentationstheorie zur Einführung. Junius.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2006 Die Neue Rhetorik: Studien zu Chaim Perelman. Fink.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
2002 Metaphor. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koren, R. & R. Amossy
(eds.) 2002 Après Perelman: Quelles politiques pour les nouvelles rhétoriques? L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Don’t Think of an Elephant! Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. & O. Ducrot
1980 Metaphors We Live by. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
1983 Principles of pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
1989 Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Man, P.
1991 Rhetorik der Tropen. In J. Kopperschmidt (ed.):170–188.Google Scholar
Maneli, M.
1994 Perelman’s new rhetoric as philosophy and methodology for the next century. Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, W. C. , C. M. Matthiessen & S. A. Thompson
1992 Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eds.) Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text: 39–78. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M.
1986 De la problématologie. Mardaga.Google Scholar
2010 La problématologie. Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. J.
1974 Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Öhlschläger, G.
1979 Linguistische Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der Argumentation. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’keefe, D.
2002 Persuasion. Sage.Google Scholar
Ortner, H.
2000 Schreiben und denken. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Pater, W. A.
1965 Les Topiques d’Aristotle et la dialectique platonicienne. St.Paul.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A.
2001 Critical applied linguistics. Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C.
1979 Juridische Logik als Argumentationslehre. Alber.Google Scholar
1980 Das Reich der Rhetorik. Beck.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C. & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca
1983[1958] Traité de l’argumentation, la nouvelle rhétorique. Ed. Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Plantin, C.
1998 Les raisons des émotions. In M. Bondi (ed.) Forms of argumentative discourse: 3–50. Clueb.Google Scholar
2005 L’argumentation. Presses universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plett, H. F.
1975 Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse. Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
2000 Systematische Rhetorik. Fink.Google Scholar
Poyatos, F.
1992 Advances in nonverbal communication. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapp, Chr.
2002 Aristoteles: Rhetorik. Übs. u. erl. 1. Halbband: Einleitung. Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P.
1975 La métaphore vive. Seuil.Google Scholar
Schanze, H. & J. Kopperschmidt
(eds.) 1989 Rhetorik und Philosophie. Fink.Google Scholar
Schmetz, R.
2000 L’argumentation selon Perelman. Presses universitaires de Namur.Google Scholar
Shi-Xu
2005 A cultural approach to discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shotter, J.
1993 Cultural politics of everyday life. Open University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E.
1958 The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E., R. Rieke & A. Janik
1984 An introduction to reasoning. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Trapp, R.
(ed.) 1990 The empirical study of argumentation. Argumentation 4(2) (Special issue). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viehweg, T.
1974 Topik und Jurisprudenz. Beck.Google Scholar
Walker, G. B.
1987 Communicating across cultures. In F. Van Eemeren (eds.), vol. 3B: 238–250.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N.
1989 Informal logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1992 The place of emotion in argument. Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
1996 Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., Chr. Reed & F. Macagno
2008 Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warnick, B. & S. L. Kline
1992 The new rhetoric’s argument schemes: a rhetorical view of practical reasoning. Argumentation and Advocacy 29: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1999 Emotions across languages and cultures. Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. & M. Reisigl
2001 Discourse and racism. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (eds.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis: 372–397. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Related articles: Argumentation theory, Discourse analysis, Figures of speech, Literary pragmatics, Manipulation, Metalinguistic awareness, Narrative, Social psychology, Stylistics