Cover not available

In:Argumentative Style: A pragma-dialectical study of functional variety in argumentative discourse
Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Sara Greco, Ton van Haaften, Nanon Labrie, Fernando Leal and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 20] 2022
► pp. 315–322

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

References

Published online: 28 July 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.20.refs
Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3), 265–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andone, C. (2017). The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 53–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachrach, P. (1967). The theory of democratic elitism: A critique. Boston: Little and Brown.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society 18(6), 783–800. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Writing social psychology: Fictional things and unpopulated texts. British Journal of Social Psychology 50(1), 4–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bijnen, E. S., van, & Greco, S. (2018). Divide to unite: Making disagreement explicit in dispute mediation. Journal of argumentation in context 7(3), 285–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bijnen, E. S. van, (2020). Common ground in conflict mediation. An argumentative perspective. Doctoral dissertation USI - Università della Svizzera italiana.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolman, L. G., & T. E. Deal (1991). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. (1st ed. 1984). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boudon, R. (2002). Sociology that really matters. European Sociological Review 18(3), 371–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. (1994). Smoke and mirrors. How science reflects reality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation. The transformative approach to conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, C. (2007). Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Claes, P., & Hulsens, E. (2015). Groot retorisch woordenboek . Lexicon van stijlfiguren [Grand rhetorical dictionary. Lexicon of figures of style]. Nijmegen: van Tilt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (1989). Rationality and the justification of democracy. In: G. Brennan & L. E. Lomansky (Eds.), Politics and process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, R., Jacobs, F., & Nevillle, D. (2016). The European Parliament. London: John Harper.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coser, L. (1959). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic maneuvering. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 2. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (2015). Democracy and argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp.  827–841). Cham (Switzerland) etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017a). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 7–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017b). The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 157–180). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Argumentation theory. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham (Switzerland): Springer. Argumentation Library 33. . Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation 33(2), 153–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Examining argumentative style: A new theoretical perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10(1), 8–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B. (2010). In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia 7(1), 19–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions . A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter. [Originally Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris.] Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.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., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse . A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., & Barry, M. (2012). Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine 27(10), 1361–1367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style . The uses of language in persuasion. New York etc.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2017). The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 71–91). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2020). The role of the judge in legal proceedings. A pragma-dialectical analysis. In E. T. Feteris, A pragma-dialectical approach of legal argumentation. Selected essays (pp.  27–41). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes . Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (1936). The problem of epistemology [in Polish]. English translation in R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp.  79–112). Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foster, K. (2003). A study in mediation styles: A comparative analysis of evaluative and transformative styles. Available at: [URL] (last visited July 2021).
Franck, L. S., & O'Brien, K. (2019). The evolution of family-centered care: From supporting parent-delivered interventions to a model of family integrated care. Birth Defects Research 111(15), 1044–1059. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franck, L. S., Waddington, C., & O’Brien, K. (2020). Family integrated care for preterm infants. Critical Care Nursing Clinics 32(2), 149–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (2017a). Argumentative patterns with argumentation by example in legislative debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp.  109–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in context 11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen (2017b). The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns . Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp.  31–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Girolamo, D. (2020). The opening statement in mediation: A Goffman analysis. In M. F. Moscati, M. Palmer, & M. Roberts (Eds.), Comparative dispute resolution (pp.  103–115). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1981). Typology and functional domains. Studies in Language 5(2), 163–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco, S. (2018). Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique, 2018, 68, 7–15. Available at [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, S. (2011). Argumentation in dispute mediation . A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 3. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco, S., & Jermini-Martinez Soria, Ch. (2021). Mediators’ reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10(1), 73–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haaften, T. van & Leeuwen, M. van (2021). On the relation between argumentative style and linguistic style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10(1), 97–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Transl. by J. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., Carer, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J. M. (2010). Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest. Development of the flirting styles inventory. Communication Quarterly 58, 365–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harmon, J. E., & Gross, A. G. (2007). The scientific literature: A guided tour. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haynes, J. M., & Haynes, G. L. (1989). Mediating divorce . Casebook of strategies for successful family negotiations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, J. (2018). Law Express: Medical Law (Revision Guide). London: Pearson UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ICOR (2013). Transcription conventions of CLAPI, [URL] (last visited March 2021).
International Dyslexia Association (2020). Dyslexia basics. Available at [URL].
Jamieson, K. H. (1988). Eloquence in an electronic age . The transformation of political speechmaking. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janier, M., & Reed, C. (2017a). Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse. Argumentation 31(1), 45–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017b). I didn’t say that! Uses of SAY in mediation discourse. Discourse Studies 19(6), 619–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jasinski, J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric . Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jermini-Martinez Soria, C. (2021). Reframing as an argumentative competence in dispute mediation . Doctoral dissertation USI – Università della Svizzera italiana. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2004). Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konrad, T. R., Link, C. L., Shackelton, R. J., Marceau, L. D., von Dem Knesebeck, O., Siegrist, J., & McKinlay, J. B. (2010). It’s about time: Physicians’ perceptions of time constraints in primary care medical practice in three national healthcare systems. Medical Care 48(2), pp.95–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kressel, K. (2020). Mediator styles. In M. F. Moscati, M. Palmer, & M. Roberts (Eds.), Comparative dispute resolution (pp.  217–230). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labrie, N. H. M. (2014). For the sake of argument. Considering the role, characteristics, and effects of argumentation in general practice consultation. Doctoral dissertation USI – Università della Svizzera italiana.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
Linz, J. (1990). Transitions to democracy. Washington Quarterly, Summer, 143–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lodewick, H. J. M. F. (1964). Literaire kunst [The art of literature]. [15th ed.] ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Malmberg. (1st ed. 1955.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCorkle, S., & Reese, M. J. (2019). Mediation theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science 12 (4), 269–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2005). Roots and inspirations. A brief history of the foundations of dispute resolution. In M. L. Moffitt, & T. V. Bordone (Eds.) The handbook of dispute resolution (pp.  13–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process. Practical strategies for resolving conflict (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morton, J. (2004). Understanding developmental disorders . A causal modelling approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Health Services (2021). Shared decision-making. Retrieved July 2021 via [URL]
Palmieri, R., & Mazzali-Lurati, S. (2017). Practical reasoning in corporate communication with multiple audiences. Journal of Argumentation in Context 6(2), 167–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan, D. (2018). “Doctors killed my baby”: Argumentative patterns in medical disputes in China. Health Communication 33(10), 1267–1276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan, D., Chen, Y., & Ju, S. (2018). Argumentative patterns in Chinese medical consultations. Argumentation 32(1), 37–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. Treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame-London: University of Notre Dame Press. [English transl. of Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique . Traité de l'argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science 146 (3642), 347–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Princen, T. (1992). Intermediaries in international conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., & Holmer, M. (1992). Framing, reframing and issue development. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp.  128–155). Newbury Park etc.: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rees, M. A. van (1992). The use of language in conversation . An introduction to research in conversation analysis. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2019). Inference in argumentation . A topics-based approach to argument schemes. Cham: Springer. Argumentation Library 34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roter, D., & Hall, J. A. (2006). Doctors talking with patients/Patients talking with doctors: Improving communication in medical visits. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sander, F. E. A. (1979). Varieties of dispute processing. In A. L. Levin, & R. R. Wheeler (Eds.), The Pound Conference. Perspectives on justice in the future. Proceedings of the National conference on the causes of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice (pp.  65–87). St. Paul (Minnesota): West Publishing Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, C. (1988). The crisis of parliamentary democracy [1st ed. 1923]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper Bros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, [URL]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2017). The role of pragmatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 93–108). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. S., & Mohammed, D. (2012). Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making. Journal of Argumentation in Contex 1(1), 19–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Susskind, L. (2010). Looking at negotiation and dispute resolution through a CA/DA lens. Negotiation Journal 26(2), 163–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China (2015). Workbook for governmental press conferences. Beijing: Wu Zhou Publishing House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (1999). L’analyse des conversations [The analysis of conversations]. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tseronis, A. (2017). Analysing multimodal argumentation within the pragma-dialectical framework. Strategic manoeuvring in the front covers of The Economist . In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Wu (Eds. 2017), Contextualizing pragma-dialectics (pp.  335–359). Amsterdam-Philadelphia. John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uzqueda, A., & Frediani, P. (2002). La conciliazione. Guida per la soluzione negoziale delle controversie [Conciliation. A guide for a negotiated solution of controversies]. Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wales, K. (1991). A dictionary of stylistics. London-New York: Longman. (1st ed. 1989.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walter, A. S. (2014). Choosing the enemy: Attack behaviour in a multiparty system. Party Politics 20(3), 311–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walter, A. S., & Brug, W. van der (2013). When the gloves come off: Inter-party variation in negative campaigning in Dutch elections, 1981–2010. Acta Politica 48(4), 367–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walter, A. S., Brug, W. van der, & Praag, P. van (2014). When the stakes are high: Party competition and negative campaigning. Comparative Political Studies 47(4), 550–573. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whately, R. (1828[1963]). Elements of rhetoric. London/Oxford: J. Murray & J. F. Parker. [Reprint D. Ehninger (Ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, S., Milne, E., Rosen S., Hansen, P., Swettenham, J., Frith, U., & Ramus, F. (2006). The role of sensorimotor impairments in dyslexia: A multiple case study of dyslexic children. With commentaries by D. V. M. Bishop, U. Goswami, R. I. Nicholson, A. J. Fawcett, & P. Tallal, and a reply by F. Ramus, S. White, & U. Frith. Developmental Science 9 (3) 237–269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu P. (2017). Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks at press conferences of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Wu (Eds. 2017), Contextualizing pragma-dialectics (pp.  225–254). Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). Confrontational maneuvering by dissociation in spokespersons argumentative replies at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation 33(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu P. (2019b). “I have no comment”: Confrontational maneuvering by declaring a standpoint unallowed or indisputable at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation 33(4), 489–519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2009). On spokesperson’s language style. Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences) 6, 59–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegler, A., Best, K.-H., & Altmann, G. (2002). Nominalstil. Etc: Empirische Text- und Kulturforschung 2, 72–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue