Cover not available

In:Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 1–18

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Cross-disciplinary perspectives on context-specific argumentation practices

Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.01ile
Article outline
  • Structure of the volume
    • Section I.Theoretical perspectives on argumentation – revisited
    • Section II.Argumentation practices in political discourse environments
    • Section III.Argumentation practices in legal discourse environments
    • Section IV. Argumentation practices in debates on societal and family issues
    • Section V.Argumentation practices in multi-modal discourse environments
  • References
References (27)
References
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, Erik C. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. (1997). The limits of the dialogue model of argument (May 15, 1997). OSSA Conference Archive. Paper 10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock (Ed.), The Uses of a Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University (pp. 75–84). Hamilton, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godden, D. M. (2003). On Toulmin’s fields and Wittgenstein’s later views on logic. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck-Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 369–375). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodnight, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18(4), 214–227.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gronbeck, B. E. (1981). Socio-cultural notions of argument fields: A primer. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation (1–20). Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanson, J. (1989). Argument fields, logical types, and shared purposes. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.) Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 275–285). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klumpp, J. F. (1981). A Dramatistic Approach to Fields. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.) Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings for the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 44–55). Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kneupper, C. W. (1981). Argument fields: some social constructivist observations. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.) Dimensions of argument: Proceedings for the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 80–87). Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKerrow, R. E. (1980). Argument communities: a quest for distinctions. In J. Rhodes and S. Newell (Eds.), Proceedings of the [First] Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 214–227). Falls Church, VA.: Speech and Communication Association and American Forensic Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The TA Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pieraut-Le Bonniec, G., & Valette, M. (1991). The development of argumentative Discourse. In G. Pieraut-Le Bonniec and M. Dolitsky (Eds.) Language bases … discourse bases: Some Aspects of Contemporary French Language Psycholinguistics Research (pp. 245–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, R. C. 1981. Argument fields. In: G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings for the second summer conference on argumentation (pp. 56–79), Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1982. The influence of purpose on fields of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 228–245.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Argument Fields. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (Eds.) Readings in Argumentation (pp. 469–504). Berlin & New York: Foris Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Purpose, argument fields, and theoretical justification. Argumentation 22, 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik A. (1984/1978). An Introduction to Reasoning (2nd ed.). New York, Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Controversies 5). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wenzel, J. W. (1982). On fields of argument as propositional systems. Journal o the f American Forensic Association, 18, 204–213.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willard, C. A. (1981). Argument fields: A Cartesian meditation. In George Ziegelmueller and Jack Rhodes (Eds.) Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second S.C.A./A.F.A. Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). Argument fields. In J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (Eds.) Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 24–77). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (1992). Persistent questions in the theory of argument fields. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample & P. J. Benoit (Eds.) Readings in Argumentation (pp. 417–436). Berlin & New York: Foris Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Degano, Chiara, Dora Renna & Francesca Santulli
2024. Genres and persuasion. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue