Welcome to our book review site go-pdf.online!
You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Examining Argumentation in Context
"Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering "contains a selection of papers on strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Starting point of all of these contributions is that a satisfactory analysis and evaluation of strategic maneuvering is possible only if the argumentative discourse is first situated in the communicative and interactional context in which it occurs. While some of the contributions present general views with regard to strategic maneuvering, other contributions report on the results of empirical studies, examine strategic maneuvering in a particular legal or political context, or highlight the presentational design of strategic maneuvering. "Examining Argumentation in Context" therefore provides an insightful" "view of recent developments in the research on strategic maneuvering, which is currently prominent in the study of argumentation.
Controversy and Confrontation
The essays that are collected in Controversy and Confrontation provide a closer insight into the relationship between controversy and confrontation that deepens our understanding of the functioning of argumentative discourse in managing differences of opinion. Their authors stem from two backgrounds. First, the controversy scholars Dascal, Marras, Euli, Regner, Ferreira, and Lessl discuss historical controversies in science, both from a theoretical and an empirical perspective; Saim concentrates on a historical controversy; Fritz provides a historical perspective on controversies by analyzing communication principles. Second the argumentation scholars Johnson, van Laar, van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels address theoretical or empirical aspects of argumentative confrontation; Aakhus and Vasilyeva examine argumentative discourse from the perspective of conversation analysis; Jackson analyzes argumentative confrontation in a recent debate between scientists and politicians. Last but not least, two contributors, Kutrovátz and Zemplén, make an attempt to bridge the study of historical controversy and the study of argumentation.
Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness
In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallac...
Argumentation in Actual Practice
Argumentation in Actual Practice contains a collection of topical studies about argumentative discourse in context written by argumentation scholars from a diversity of academic backgrounds. Some contributions provide general perspectives, other contributions deal with specific issues, particular types of argumentative discourse or individual argumentative speech events. The contexts in which argumentation is examined vary from politics and the media to medical, juridical, educational, commercial or military contexts, a specific academic discipline, a special issue or pertain to all kinds of contextualised argumentative discourse. The issues discussed include the interpretation and analysis of argumentation, strategic manoeuvring, argument schemes, the stock issues, the fallacies, the principle of charity and the persuasiveness of argumentative discourse. A common feature is that they are all empirically-oriented and that virtually all of them are strongly concerned with an adequate understanding of contextualised argumentative discourse and the factors that may increase or decrease its reasonableness and effectiveness.
What Do We Know About the World?
What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and Argumentative Perspectives is a book trying to answer the title question by contributing to rhetorical and argumentative studies. It consists of papers presented at the “First International Conference on Rhetoric in Croatia: the Days of Ivo Škarić” in May, 2012, and subsequently revised for publication. Through a variety of different routs, the papers explore the role of rhetoric and argumentation in various types of public discourse and present interdisciplinary work connecting linguists, phoneticians, philosophers, law experts and communication scientists in the common ground of rhetoric and argumentation.. The Conference was organized with the intent of paying respect to the Croatian rhetorician and professor emeritus Ivo Škarić who was the first to introduce rhetoric at the Department of Phonetics at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb.
Argumentation in Political Interviews
In Argumentation in Political Interviews Corina Andone uses the pragma-dialectical concept of strategic maneuvering to gain a better understanding of political interviews as argumentative practices. She analyzes and evaluates the way in which politicians react in political interviews to the accusation that the position they currently hold is inconsistent with a position they advanced before. The politicians’ responses to such charges are examined for their strategic function by concentrating on a number of concrete cases and explaining how the arguers try to enhance their chances of winning the discussion. In addition, the soundness criteria are formulated for judging properly when the politicians’ responses are indeed reasonable.This book is important to argumentation theorists, discourse analysts, communication scholars and all other researchers and students interested in the way in which language is used for the purpose of persuasion in a political context. Corina Andone is Assistant Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands.
Parliamentary Discourses across Cultures
This volume looks at the growing interest of different specialists in the problems associated with political discourse, in general, and parliamentary discourse, as one of its major sub-genres, in particular. Its main goal is to offer a deeper understanding of the diversity of parliamentary practices across space and time. The papers aim to highlight the role played by local social and historical factors, ideologies, collective mentalities, and social psychology in building up culture-specific traditions of political institutions. Approaching the problems from a large variety of theoretical perspectives, the investigations are based on flexible, interdisciplinary, and multi-layered methodologies, offering an image of the multifaceted manifestations of parliamentary debates. The volume addresses specialists in several fields, such as linguistics, discourse analysis, history, political science, sociology, (social) anthropology, (social) psychology, media and communication.
Discourse, of Course
Discourse, of Course comes after Jan Renkema’s Introduction to Discourse Studies (2004) for undergraduates. The new book is a collection of twenty short papers. It is a capita selecta course and meant for graduate programs. The aim of this book is threefold: • to present material for advanced courses in discourse studies; • to unfold a stimulating display of research projects to future PhD students; • to give an overview of new developments after the 2004 Introduction to Discourse Studies. This publication fulfills both the teacher's need for a state-of-the-art overview of the main topics in discourse, and the student's need to acquire standards for developing research plans in theses and dissertations. It gives a combination of approaches from very different schools in discourse studies, ranging from argumentation theory to genre theory, from the study of multimodal metaphors to cognitive approaches to coherence analysis. This book is not only meant to serve as a textbook, but also as a reference book for researchers who want an update for various main topics in the field.
Philosophy of Language in Uruguay
In Europe, and later in the United States, the revitalization of the philosophy of language emerged from the need to address certain perplexities concerning formal disciplines and to work out certain complexities found within philosophy. In Uruguay, philosophy of language began with Carlos Vaz Ferreira as an analysis of the common and argumentative uses of language but then expanded to address typically philosophical questions. Edited by Carlos Enrique Caorsi and Ricardo J. Navia, Philosophy of Language in Uruguay: Language, Meaning, and Philosophy demonstrates the different directions in which philosophy of language has developed in Uruguay in the last twenty years, giving a representative ...
Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy
The present volume assembles a relevant set of studies of argument by analogy, which address this topic in a systematic fashion, either from an essentially theoretical perspective or from the perspective of it being applied to different fields like politics, linguistics, literature, law, medicine, science in general and philosophy. All result from original research conducted by their authors for this publication. Thus, broadly speaking, this is an exception which we find worthy of occupying a special place in the sphere of the bibliography on the argument by analogy. In effect, most of the contexts of the publications on this topic focus on specific areas, for example everyday discourse, science or law theory, while underestimating or sometimes even ignoring other interdisciplinary scopes, as is the case of literature, medicine or philosophy. The idiosyncrasy of this volume is that the reader and the researcher may follow the development of different theoretical outlooks on argument by analogy, while measuring the scope of its (greater or lesser) application to the aforementioned areas as a whole.
