Cover not available

Review published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 18:1 (2010) ► pp.181–187

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

Frans H. Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.). Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. xiii + 279 pp. ISBN 978-90-272-1986-5

Reviewed by
 | State University of Campinas — UNICAMP, Brazil
Published online: 9 April 2010
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18.1.09sig
References (19)
References
Dascal, M. 1994. “Epistemology, controversies, and pragmatics”. Downloaded July 2009 from [URL]
1996. “Types of polemics and types of polemical moves”. In S. Cmejrkova et al. (eds), Dialogue Analysis VI, Vol. 11. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 15–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. “How rational can a polemic across the analytic-continental ‘divide’ be?”. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9(3): 313–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed). 2008. Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist?. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dascal, M. and Cremaschi, S. 1999 “The Malthus-Ricardo correspondence: Sequential structure, argumentative patterns, and rationality”. Journal of Pragmatics 311:1129–1172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., and Henkemans, S. A. F. (eds). 2003. Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. 1994. Studies in Pragma-Diaclectics. Amsterdam: Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Henkemans, S. A. F. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P. 2006. “Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation”. Argumentation 201: 381–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 2002. Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 2005. Argumentation in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. 1999. “Argumentation as normative pragmatics”. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the ISSA, edited by F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 397–403.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. “Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics”. Argumentation 14(3): 261–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. 2000. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pera, M. 1994. The Discourses of Science. C. Botsford (trans). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pera, M. and Shea, W. R. (eds). 1991. Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1951. The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue