Cover not available

In:Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time: Accusation of inconsistency in response to criticism
Dima Mohammed
[Argumentation in Context 15] 2018
► pp. 153–159

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

References

Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.15.refs
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2017). Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andone, C. (2010). Maneuvering strategically in a political interview: Analyzing and evaluating responses to an accusation of inconsistency. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Argumentation in political interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. C., & Ducrot, O. (1976). L’argumentation dans la langue. Langages 42, 5–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle. (1992). The politics (T. A. Sinclair, Trans., T. J. Saunders, Ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M., (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Martens, J. L. (1977). Argumentum ad hominem. Logique et Analyse: Nouvelle Serie, 20, 76–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beard, A. (2000). The language of politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, A. (1985). A rhetorical view of the ad hominem . Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63, 50–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Camper, M. (2017). Arguing over texts: The rhetoric of interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air (Vol. 15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craig, R. T. (1986). Goals in discourse. In D. G. Ellis and W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes (pp. 257–74). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Multiple goals in discourse: An epilogue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1), 16–170.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B. J., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1982). Arguing and convincing. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Fortis Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992b). Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation, 6(2), 141–159.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Argumentum ad hominem: A pragma-dialectical case in point. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 223–228). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.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, Grootendorst, R., Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1/4, 479–497.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002a). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. In G. T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing communication & culture: Selected papers from the twelfth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 67–75). Washington DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: A delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003a). The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Argumentation, 17(4), 387–403.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). More about fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The case of tu quoque . In H. V. Hansen, Ch. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its applications: Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument. [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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 argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 75–84). Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20(4), 381–392.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007a). Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 375–380). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007b). Reconnecting dialectic and rhetoric: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Anthropology and Philosophy, 8(1–2), 49–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Within the bounds of reason: Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. In K. Korta & J. Garmendia (Eds.), Meaning, intentions and argumentation (pp. 1–27). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. J. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 3–14). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007a). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007b). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. In J. A. Blair, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground: Proceedings of the OSSA Conference 2007. [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2002). ‘Put bluntly, you have something of a credibility problem’. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 173–202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of argument: A theory of structure. Berlin: Foris/London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 13(1–4), 360–375.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen – ElsevierGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, S. (1986). Interviewers’ questions in broadcast interviews. In J. Wilson and B. Crow (Eds.), Belfast working papers in language and linguistics (Vol. 8, pp. 50–85). Jordanstown: University of Ulster.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hitchcock, D. (2007). Is there an argumentum ad hominem fallacy? In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson (pp. 187–200). Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House of Commons Information Office (2005). Parliamentary Questions. Factsheet 1. Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report (1997). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 1997: Debate on arrangements of Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 781, cc. 796–797). Retrieved from [URL]
(2002). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Feb 2002: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 379, cc. 853–854). Retrieved from [URL]
(2004). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 May 2004: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 421, cc. 970–975). Retrieved from [URL]
(2006). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Oct 2006: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 450, cc. 866–877). Retrieved from [URL]
(2008a). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Jan 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 471, cc. 308). Retrieved from [URL]
(2008b). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Feb 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 472, cc. 340). Retrieved from [URL]
(2008c). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Mar 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 472, cc. 1740). Retrieved from [URL]
(2008d). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Oct 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 481, cc. 885–886). Retrieved from [URL]
(2008e). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 05 Nov 2008 (pt 0002): Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 482, cc. 243–4). Retrieved from [URL]
(2008f). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Nov 2008 (pt 0002): Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 483, cc. 228–229). Retrieved from [URL]
(2010a). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 October 2010: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 516, cc. 420–431). Retrieved from [URL]
(2010b). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Nov 2010: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 517, cc. 913–923). Retrieved from [URL]
(2015). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Jan 2015: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 590, cc. 262–272). Retrieved from [URL]
(2016). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Oct 2016: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 615, cc. 293–306). Retrieved from [URL]
(2017). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Oct 2017: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 629, cc. 321–335). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons Procedure Committee (2002). Parliamentary Questions: Third report of session 2001–02. Retrieved from [URL]
Jack, M., Hutton, M., Johnson, C., Millar, D., Patrick, S., & Sandal, L. (Eds) (2011). Erskine May Erskine May: Parliamentary practice. 24th edition. London: LexisNexis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, S., Jackson, S., & Stearns, S. (1991). Digressions in argumentative discourse: Multiple goals, standing concerns, and implicatures. In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 43–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1990). Inconsistent commitments or commitment to inconsistencies. Informal Logic, 7(1), 33–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation, 6(2), 271–83.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). The problem of retraction in critical discussion. Synthese, 127, 141–159.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laar, J. A. van. (2006). Don’t say that. Argumentation, 20(4), 495–510.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). Pragmatic inconsistency and credibility. Argumentation, 21(3), 317–334.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5), 365–399.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2014). Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 193–218.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M. (2014). Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2015). Tweeting the Arab spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2016). Argumentation theory. In K. B. Jensen, R. Craig, J. Pooley & E. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy (pp. 1–15). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Oswald, S. (2013). When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 164–177.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohammed, D. (2007). Towards a pragma-dialectical approach to negotiation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 975–982). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). ‘The revolution must continue’: Strategic maneuvering in post-Mubarak Egypt. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016a). Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation, 30(3), 221–245.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). Not just rational, but also reasonable: Critical testing in the service of external purposes of public political arguments. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 499–514). London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016c). What’s in a good argument about evaluative claims? Argumentation in accountability practices. In L. Benacquista & P. Bondy (Eds.), Argumentation, objectivity and bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–23 May 2016 (pp. 1–14). Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016d). ‘It is true that security and Schengen go hand in hand’: Strategic manoeuvring in the multi-layered activity type of European Parliamentary debates. In R. von Borg (Ed.), Dialogues in Argumentation (pp. 232–266). Windsor Studies in Argumentation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Arguing inter-issue in public political arguments. In S. Oswald & Maillat, D. (Eds.). Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. II, 509–524). London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohammed, D., & Zarefsky, D. (2011). Pragma-dialectical analysis of rhetorical texts: The case of Barack Obama in Cairo. In Feteris et al. (Eds.), Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept. Public Administration, 78(3), 555–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevin, B. (1994). Quandary/abusive questions: The linguist discussion. List, 5, 754.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez de Ayala, S. (2001). FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs? Politeness in Question Time. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 143–169.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (1990). Essais sur l’argumentation: introduction linguistique à l’étude de la parole argumentative. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1971). The open society and its enemies (5th ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1974). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rees, M. A. van. (2009). Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rogers, R., & Walters, R. (2006). How Parliament works. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 333–350). Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stojanovic, I. (2017). Evaluative Adjectives and Evaluative Uses of Ordinary Adjectives. In M. Otake, S. Kurahashi, Y. Ota, K. Satoh & D. Satoh (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10091. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, S. N. (1973). Practical reasoning in natural language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tindale, C. W. (2007). Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, K. (1984). The effect of multiple goals on conversational relevance and topic shift. Communication Monographs, 51, 274–287.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, K., & Coupland, N. (1990). Multiple goals in discourse: An overview of issues. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1), 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UK Parliament Web Site (2018). Glossary. Erskine May. Retrieved from [URL]
Visser, J. C. (2016). A dialogue game for critical discussion: Groundwork in the formalisation and computerisation of the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1987). The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation, 1, 317–331.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation, 13(1), 53–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werlich, E. (1975). Typologie der texte. Heidelberg, Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woods, J. (2007). Lightening up on the ad hominem. Informal Logic, 27(1), 109–134.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (2008). Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation, 22, 317–330.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue