Cover not available

In:Argumentation in Political Deliberation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed
[Benjamins Current Topics 76] 2015
► pp. 1–9

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

Introduction

Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.76.00int
References (24)
Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. 2011. “Straw men, weak men, and hollow men.” Argumentation 25 (1): 87–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle. 2007. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (George A. Kennedy, trans.), 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asen, Robert. (Ed.) 2010. “Rhetoric and public policy.” Special issue of Rhetoric and Public Affairs 13 (1): 1–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bächtiger, André, Simon Niemeyer, Michael Neblo, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Jürg Steiner. 2010. “Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 32–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2009. “Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy?” Political Theory 37 (3): 323–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Carolyn M. Hendriks. 2012. “Fostering deliberation in the forum and beyond.” In The argumentative turn revisited, ed. by Frank Fischer, and Herbert Gottweis, 31–57. Durham: Duke University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, Constanza Ihnen, and Marcin Lewiński. 2010. “Contextual considerations in the evaluation of argumentation.” In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. by Chris Reed, and Christopher W. Tindale, 115–132. London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Argument, deliberation, dialectic and the nature of the political: A CDA perspective”. In “Symposium on Isabela Fairclough and Norman Fairclough, Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students”, special issue of Political Studies Review 11 (3): 336–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank, and Herbert Gottweis (Eds.) (2012). The argumentative turn revisited. Durham: Duke University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garver, Eugene. 1994. Aristotle’s rhetoric: An art of character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (Thomas McCarthy, trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (Thomas Burger, trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (William Rehg, trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Everyday talk in the deliberative system.” In Deliberative politics: Essays on “Democracy and disagreement,” ed. by Stephen Macedo, 211–242. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McBurney, Peter, David Hitchcock, and Simon Parsons. 2007. “The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue.” International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22 (1): 95–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 2005. “Assessing the cogency of arguments: Three kinds of merits.” Informal Logic 25 (2): 95–115.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 2010. Challenges of ordinary democracy: A case study in deliberation and dissent. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wenzel, Joseph W. 1979. “Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 16: 83–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue