Cover not available

In:Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 17] 2019
► pp. 335–335

Index

A

  • Activist discourse 6, 179–180
  • Advocacy argument(ation) 3, 33–42, 44, 53–54
  • Ambiguity 4, 103–104, 114, 327, 329, 332
  • Analogical reasoning 268, 271–272, 278, 284–286
  • Analogy argument(ation) see comparison argument(ation)
  • Argumentative indicator 17, 186
  • Argument(ation) scheme 19–28, 36–38, 178–179, 187, 239–241, 243–244, 247, 276, 323–324, 327
  • Argumentum ad consequentiam 10, 322–329
  • Argumentum ad hominem 5, 22–23, 137–152, 329, 331
  • Argumentum model of topics 217, 230, 232
  • Audience demand 38, 43, 52, 78, 81

C

  • “Checkers” speech 4, 85, 96–97
  • Charity 1–2, 17, 85
  • Children’s argumentation 7, 211–217, 220, 226, 232
  • Climate communication/debate 5, 157–170
  • Comparative argument see comparison argumentation
  • Comparison argumentation 9, 22, 24–27, 39, 48, 51, 66, 167, 239–240, 247, 249, 258, 261, 268–272, 276–277, 279, 283–287, 289–296
  • Confrontational maneuvering 70–80
  • Content analysis 8, 245–257, 261
  • Context 2, 5, 8, 16–17, 19, 22–23, 40, 95–96, 106–107, 113, 138, 144, 151, 214–215, 217, 224n2, 230, 238, 241, 245, 247, 252n12, 262, 268, 274, 279, 293, 300
  • Counter–argument(ation) 9, 195, 199, 204, 216, 293, 296
  • Counter–consideration see counter–argument(ation)
  • Critical question 3, 8, 22, 38, 42, 48, 66, 229, 258–260, 262, 323–324

D

  • Debate 5, 35, 39–41, 103, 113, 117, 140–145, 147–149, 158–159, 161, 166–167, 169, 199, 200–204, 207–208, 299
  • Deductive logic see deductive reasoning
  • Deductive process see deductive reasoning
  • Deductive reasoning 8, 214–216, 267–272, 275, 279, 285–286
  • Definition 4, 66, 118, 125, 128, 131
    • Ultimate definition 4, 119, 125, 130–131, 281
  • Dialectic(al) 39, 52, 62, 66, 195, 204, 207, 324–325
  • Difference of opinion 37, 62, 67, 72–76, 104, 220, 227, 299–300, 306, 308, 310, 312–314, 316
    • Mixed 301, 303–304, 317
    • Multiple 7, 9, 74, 77, 190–192, 220, 231, 303–304, 308, 310, 312–314, 316–317
    • Non–mixed 301, 303–304, 317
    • Single 9, 71, 76, 217, 303–304, 306, 308, 310, 312–313, 316–317
  • Dilogue 159, 162
  • Diplomatic press conference see press conference
  • Disagreement 15–16, 28, 37n2, 85, 113, 164, 166–167, 170, 206, 299, 301–304, 310, 314, 317
  • Dispositive 3, 33, 42–44
  • Dissociation 3, 63–67, 70–76, 165–170
  • Doctor–patient communication/consult 8, 237, 242, 245, 247, 257–258, 260, 262

E

  • Emotion 40, 42, 50, 54, 119, 126, 205, 284, 293, 295
  • Enact(ment) 4, 51, 53–55, 169–170
  • Epistemological 164, 196, 213
  • Ethos 36, 40, 49, 141, 151, 206
  • Evocation 5, 19, 169–170
  • External perspective 19

F

  • Fallaciousness 5, 9–10, 24n9, 81, 86, 95, 103–104, 113–114, 137–139, 141, 150, 229, 322–332
    • Hidden 9, 323, 332
  • Framing 38, 149, 161, 164–167, 221

I

  • Ideology 9, 35, 120–121, 125–126, 131
  • Implicit premise 190, 215–216, 218
  • Inferential–procedural premise 217–220, 231
  • Insider (perspective) see internal perspective
  • Institutional point 9, 33, 38, 41, 54, 67–69, 315, 317
  • Internal perspective 2, 13, 18–19
  • Interpretative argumentation in law 8, 267–268, 274–277, 279
  • Interpersonal 104, 195, 197, 202–203, 206–207, 215, 309

L

  • Legal argument(ation) 8, 267, 268n2, 272–273, 275, 279

M

  • Material–contextual premise 217–218, 224, 226, 231
  • Metaphor 5, 167, 169–170

N

  • Narrative (affordance/theory) 118–127, 131–132, 145–146, 164, 167, 169–170, 287–293, 295–296
  • Non–argument 6, 166–169
  • Normative pragmatics 159

O

  • Outsider (perspective) see external perspective

P

  • Persuasion 14, 40, 113–114, 150, 284, 293, 296
  • Philosophical argument(ation) 9, 299–300, 304, 313–315, 317
  • Polarization 150, 158–159, 295
  • Polylogue 9, 159–160, 167, 169, 308
  • Pragma–dialectics 2–3, 6, 9, 17n5, 34, 37–38, 42n12, 62, 64, 67, 70, 81, 103, 113, 175, 195–196, 230, 239, 256, 299–303, 306, 314–315, 317, 323–325
  • Pragmatic argument(ation) 8, 10, 36, 178, 192, 230, 246–247, 255–256, 259–262, 325–329, 332
  • Presence 5, 126, 130
  • Presentational device 3, 38, 43, 78–81, 181–182, 184, 188, 190–192
  • Presidential rhetoric 130
  • Press conference 3, 61–62, 67–70, 80–81
  • Probative obligation/responsibility 167
  • Propaganda 9, 282–285, 292–296
  • Prototypical argumentative pattern 6, 8, 178, 188, 192, 238, 262
  • Prototypical type of argumentation 239, 246–247, 251n10, 260–261

Q

  • Question 80, 301–316

R

  • Rhetoric 14, 38, 65, 114, 126, 130, 170, 195
  • Rhetorical Charity see charity
  • Rhetorical dilemma 91
  • Rule of Law 8, 76, 267–268, 272–274, 276, 279

S

  • Slippery slope argument(ation) 20–27
  • Socio–cultural psychology 211
  • Spokesperson 68–69, 77–79
  • Standpoint 66, 70–76, 159, 178–179, 220–221, 238–243, 251n10, 258, 301–303, 306, 317, 322–323, 326, 328
  • Stereotypical argumentative pattern 178, 182, 192
  • Stereotypical type of argumentation 239, 246–247, 251n10, 252, 255–256, 258, 261–262
  • Strategic maneuvering see strategic manoeuvring
  • Strategic manoeuvring 2–3, 10, 34, 38, 62, 66, 77–80, 317, 323–328
  • Symptomatic argumentation 8, 66, 239, 243–27, 252–261

T

  • Technical sphere 157
  • Topical potential 3, 38, 78–81
  • Topos 159, 177

U

  • Unexpressed premise see implicit premise

V

  • Value (system) 4, 37n6, 63, 73, 98, 118–121, 125, 131, 207, 278
  • Visual argument(ation) 175, 188–192
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue