Results for 'A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans C. W. Krabbe'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  41
    Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  2. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments.Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1998 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 31 (1):71-74.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  3.  4
    Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H.M. Wagemans . Handbook of Argumentation Theory. [REVIEW]Sara Rubinelli - 2016 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 5 (3):353-358.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  13
    Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H.M. Wagemans: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. [REVIEW]Ton Haaften - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):345-351.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  31
    Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H.M. Wagemans: Handbook of Argumentation Theory: Springer, Dordrecht, 2014, ISBN: 978-90-481-9472-8 , ISBN: 978-90-481-9473-5 , ISBN: 978-90-481-9474-2. [REVIEW]Ton van Haaften - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):345-351.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  63
    The Ways of Criticism.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):199-227.
    This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative discourse, such as objections, critical questions, rebuttals, refutations, counterarguments, and fallacy charges, in order to contribute to the dialogical approach to argumentation. We shall make use of four parameters to characterize distinct types of critical reaction. First, a critical reaction has a focus, for example on the standpoint, or on another part of an argument. Second, critical reactions appeal to some kind of norm, argumentative or other. Third, they each have (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  7. Dialectical Profiles and Indicators of Argumentative Moves.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Peter Houtlosser, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren - 2015 - In A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Peter Houtlosser, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer Verlag.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  8.  68
    Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):41-58.
    :In this paper, the influence of speech act theory and Grice’s the- ory of conversational implicature on the study of argumentation is discussed. First, the role that pragmatic insights play in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Jackson and Jacobs’ conver- sational approach to argumentation is described. Next, a number of examples of recent work by argumentation scholars is presented in which insights from speech act theory play a prominent role.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  9.  36
    Manoeuvring Strategically with Praeteritio.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (3):339-350.
    This paper investigates the role that the stylistic device of praeteritio (or paralipsis) can play in arguers’ attempts to reconcile their rhetorical with their dialectical aims by manoeuvring strategically when carrying out particular discussion moves of the dialectical procedure for resolving a dispute. First, attention will be paid to the ways in which praeteritio can be realized in discourse. Next, an analysis is given of the effects the use of praeteritio may have as a result of the presentational means that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  10.  18
    Comments On `Analyzing Argumentative Discourse from a Rhetorical Perspective: Defining "Person" and "Human Life" in Constitutional Disputes Over Abortion'.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):333-338.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  12
    Walton's Scare Tactics Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2001 - Informal Logic 21 (3).
  12.  59
    State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation. [REVIEW]A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (4):447-473.
    In this paper, a survey is presented of the main approaches to the structure of argumentation. The paper starts with a historical overview of the distinctions between various types of argument structure. Next, the main definitions given in the various approaches are discussed as well as the methods that are proposed to deal with doubtful cases.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  13.  22
    Argumentative Patterns in Over-the-Counter Medicine Advertisements.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):81-95.
    In this paper, an argumentative pattern that is prototypical for the communicative practice of over-the-counter medicine advertisements will be discussed. First, a basic argumentative pattern for this type of advertisement will be identified. In addition, an overview of various types of extensions of this basic pattern will be presented. Finally, it will be made clear how combinations of the basic pattern and specific extensions can be analysed as the result of strategic choices made by the advertisers concerning the type of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  14.  37
    Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans & Dima Mohammed - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):19-32.
    In this paper it is first investigated to what extent the institutional goal and basic principles of shared decision making are compatible with the aim and rules for critical discussion. Next, some techniques that doctors may use to present their own treatment preferences strategically in a shared decision making process are discussed and evaluated both from the perspective of the ideal of shared decision making and from that of critical discussion.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  15.  22
    James B. Freeman,dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. A theory of argument structure.Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (3):319-321.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  11
    Argumentative Use and Strategic Function of the Expression ‘Not for Nothing’.Henrike Jansen & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (2):143-162.
    In English discourse one can find cases of the expression ‘not for nothing’ being used in argumentation. The expression can occur both in the argument and in the standpoint. In this chapter we analyse the argumentative and rhetorical aspects of ‘not for nothing’ by regarding this expression as a presentational device for strategic manoeuvring. We investigate under which conditions the proposition containing the expression ‘not for nothing’ functions as a standpoint, an argument or neither of these elements. It is also (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17.  7
    Case study of the use of a circumstantial.Douglas N. Walton - 2000 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 33 (2):101-115.
    In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Rhetoric 33.2 (2000) 101-115 [Access article in PDF] Case Study of the Use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem in Political Argumentation Douglas Walton In the 1860s, Northern newspapers attacked Lincoln's policies by attacking his character, using the terms drunk, baboon, too slow, foolish, and dishonest. Steadily on the increase in political argumentation since then, the argumentum ad hominem has been carefully refined as an instrument of "oppo (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  18.  2
    Empirical Logic and Public Debate: Essays in Honour of Else M. Barth.Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renée José Dalitz & Pier A. Smit (eds.) - 1993 - Rodopi.
    Empirical Logic and Public Debate supplies a large number of previously unpublished papers that together make up a survey of recent developments in the field of empirical logic. It contains theoretical contributions, some of a more formal and some of an informal nature, as well as numerous contemporary and historical case studies. The book will therefore be attractive both to those who wish to focus upon the theory and practice of discussion, debate, arguing, and argument, as well as to those (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  19.  46
    Case Study of the Use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem in Political Argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 2000 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 33 (2):101 - 115.
    In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Rhetoric 33.2 (2000) 101-115 [Access article in PDF] Case Study of the Use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem in Political Argumentation Douglas Walton In the 1860s, Northern newspapers attacked Lincoln's policies by attacking his character, using the terms drunk, baboon, too slow, foolish, and dishonest. Steadily on the increase in political argumentation since then, the argumentum ad hominem has been carefully refined as an instrument of "oppo (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  20.  9
    Strategies for strengthening presumptions and generating ethos by manifestly ensuring accountability.Fred Kauffeld & Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    In argumentation, as elsewhere, speakers strategically engage favourable presumptions by manifestly making themselves accountable for their communicative efforts. Such strategies provide the addressee with reasons to regard the speaker as accountable in specific ways and, via that regard for the speaker, with situation-specific rationales for responding positively to what the speaker says. This paper identifies some resources available to arguers for strengthening, elaborating, and focusing such special presumptions. The paper offers an analysis of Barbara Jordan’s “Statement on the Articles of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  21. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Neil Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   381 citations  
  22.  29
    Dialogue Foundations.Wilfrid Hodges & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75:17-49.
    [Wilfrid Hodges] During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  23. Analysing complex argumentation: the reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion.Snoeck Henkemans & Arnolda Francisca - 1992 - Amsterdam: SicSat.
    Snoeck, A. F. (1997) Analysing Complex Argumentation. The reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Argumentation in a Critical Discussion.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  24.  8
    Predicaments of the Concluding Stage.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Argumentative discussion is successful only if, at the concluding stage, both parties can agree about the result of their enterprise. If they can not, the whole discussion threatens to start all over again. Dialectical ruling should prevent this from happening. The paper investigates whether dialectical rules may enforce a decision one way or the other; either by recognizing some arguments as conclusive or some criticisms as devastating. At the end the pragma-dialectical model appears more successful than even its protagonists have (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  25. The Problem Of Retraction In Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1-2):141-159.
    In many contexts a retraction of commitment isfrowned upon. For instance, it is not appreciated,generally, if one withdraws a promise or denies anearlier statement. Critical discussion, too, caneasily be disrupted by retractions, if these occur toofrequently and at critical points. But on the otherhand, the very goal of critical discussion –resolution of a dispute – involves a retraction,either of doubt, or of some expressed point of view.A person who never retracts, not even under pressureof cogent arguments, would hardly qualify as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  26.  38
    In the quagmire of quibbles: a dialectical exploration.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2019 - Synthese 198 (4):3459-3476.
    Criticism may degenerate into quibbling or nitpicking. How can discussants keep quibblers under control? In the paper we investigate cases in which a battle about words replaces a discussion of the matters that are actually at issue as well as cases in which a battle about minor objections replaces a discussion of the major issues. We survey some lines of discussion dealing with these situations in profiles of dialogue.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27.  21
    Winning and Losing for Arguers.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    What roles do “winning” and “losing” have to play in argumentative discussions? We say that someone has “won” a discussion or debate, but also an emphasis on “winning” is often rejected. The question is: can these concepts be so interpreted that justice is done to these antagonistic views? Starting from Aristotelian ideas, the paper purports to establish that the views mentioned above can indeed be reconciled.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  28.  78
    Formal systems of dialogue rules.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1985 - Synthese 63 (3):295 - 328.
    Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  29.  17
    So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuation dialogues.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
    This paper discusses several types of relevance criticism within dialogue. Relevance criticism is a way one could or should criticize one's partner's contribution in a conversation as being deficient in respect of conversational coherence. The first section tries to narrow down the scope of the subject to manageable proportions. Attention is given to the distinction between criticism of alleged fallacies within dialogue and such criticism as pertains to argumentative texts. Within dialogue one may distigguish tenability criticism, connection criticism, and narrow-type (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  30.  49
    A theory of modal dialectics.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1986 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (2):191 - 217.
  31.  65
    Topical Roots of Formal Dialectic.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):71-87.
    Formal dialectic has its roots in ancient dialectic. We can trace this influence in Charles Hamblin’s book on fallacies, in which he introduced his first formal dialectical systems. Earlier, Paul Lorenzen proposed systems of dialogical logic, which were in fact formal dialectical systems avant la lettre, with roles similar to those of the Greek Questioner and Answerer. In order to make a comparison between ancient dialectic and contemporary formal dialectic, I shall formalize part of the Aristotelian procedure for Academic debates. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  32.  24
    Fundamental Circularities in the Theory of Argumentation.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Sometimes pernicious circularities appear in definitions of fundamental concepts of argumentation theory. For instance, in pragma-dialectical theory, the concept of a fallacy and that of a critical discussion aiming at resolving a difference of opinion mutually presuppose one another. A similar relationship obtains, in argumentation theory at large, between the concept of argumentation and that of rationality. Again, the concept of an argumentative dialogue presupposes a concept of statement. Yet, statementhood is sometimes claimed to be determined by a locution’s function (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  33.  48
    On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):233-242.
    Any well-structured argumentative exchange must be preceded by some preparatory stages. In the pragma-dialectical four-stage model of critical discussion, the clarification of issues and positions is relegated to the confrontation stage and the other preparatory matters are dealt within the opening stage. In the opening stage, the parties involved come to agree to discuss their differences and to do so by an argumentative exchange rather than by, say, a sequence of bids and offers. They should also come to agree on (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  34.  12
    Jacobus C. Visser, A Dialogue Game for Critical Discussion: Groundwork in the Formalisation and Computerisation of the Pragma-Dialectical Model of Argumentation. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, Amsterdam, xiv + 153 pp.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):457-460.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35.  47
    Formal systems of dialogue rules.Erick C. W. Krabbe - 1984 - Synthese 58 (2):295 - 328.
    Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  36.  34
    Note on a completeness theorem in the theory of counterfactuals.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1978 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1):91 - 93.
  37.  25
    That’s no argument! The dialectic of non-argumentation.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Jan Albert van Laar - 2015 - Synthese 192 (4):1173-1197.
    What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed argument of her interlocutor as an argument, accusing him of having presented no argument at all. In this paper, we shall deal with this reproach, which taken literally amounts to a charge of having committed a fallacy of non-argumentation. As such it is a very strong, if not the ultimate, criticism, which even carries the risk of abandonment of the discussion and can, therefore, not be made without burdening (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  38.  43
    Strategic Maneuvering in Mathematical Proofs.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):453-468.
    This paper explores applications of concepts from argumentation theory to mathematical proofs. Note is taken of the various contexts in which proofs occur and of the various objectives they may serve. Examples of strategic maneuvering are discussed when surveying, in proofs, the four stages of argumentation distinguished by pragma-dialectics. Derailments of strategies (fallacies) are seen to encompass more than logical fallacies and to occur both in alleged proofs that are completely out of bounds and in alleged proofs that are at (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  39.  18
    From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation.Else Margarete Barth & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1982 - Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Edited by E. C. W. Krabbe.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   116 citations  
  40.  49
    It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks.Erik C. W. Krabbe & Douglas Walton - 1993 - Informal Logic 15 (2).
    The situationally disqualifying ad hominem attack is an argumentative move in critical dialogue whereby one participant points out certain features in his adversary's personal situation that are claimed to make it inappropriate for this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain criticisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem argumentation are discussed as well and compared with the situationally disqualifying (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  41.  24
    The Formalization of Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):101-119.
    This paper makes an independent start with formalizing the rules for the argumentation stage of critical discussions. It does not deal with the well-known code of conduct consisting of ten rules but with the system consisting of fifteen rules on which the code of conduct is based. The rules of this system are scrutinized and problems they raise are discussed. Then a formal dialectical system is defined that reflects most of the contents of these rules. The aim is to elucidate (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  42.  22
    Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech?Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):281-294.
    Aristotle's illustrations of the fallacy of Figure of Speech (or Form of Expression) are none too convincing. They are tied to Aristotle's theory of categories and to peculiarities of Greek grammar that fail to hold appeal for a contemporary readership. Yet, upon closer inspection, Figure of Speech shows many points of contact with views and problems that inhabit 20th-century analytical philosophy. In the paper, some Aristotelian examples will be analyzed to gain a better understanding of this fallacy. The case of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  43.  11
    Creative reasoning in formal discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (4):483-498.
    Systems of formal dialectics articulate methods of conflict resolution. To this end they provide norms to regulate verbal exchanges between the Proponent of a thesis and an Opponent. These regulated exchanges constitute what are known as formal discussions.One may ask what moves, if any, in formal discusions correspond to arguing for or against the thesis. It is claimed that certain moves of the Proponent's are properly designated as arguing for the thesis, and that certain moves of the Opponent purport to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  44.  25
    Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):329-350.
    Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  45.  45
    Meeting in the House of Callias: Rhetoric and Dialectic. [REVIEW]Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):205-217.
    The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe and compare the original goals and perspectives of both rhetoric and dialectic in theory and in practice. Dialectic is the practice and theory of conversations; rhetoric that of speeches. For theory of dialectic, this paper will turn to Aristotle's Topics and Sophistical Refutations; for theory of rhetoric, to his Rhetoric. Thus it will appear that rhetoric and dialectic are pretty close. Yet, on the other hand, there is a long tradition of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  46.  34
    Boekbespekingen.I. de la Potterie, I. de la Porterie, P. Smulders, P. Ploumen, P. Fransen, L. Monden, C. Sträter, J. Van Torre, P. Grootens, A. V. Kol, A. Snoeck, J. Rietmeyer, J. Mulders, J. De Munter, P. van Doornik, J. Crick, J. Rupert, R. Loyens, F. Malmberg, S. Trooster, R. Hostie, J. Nota, A. Poncelet, L. Vander Kerken, W. Couturier, P. de Bruin, L. Jansen, J. Peeters, A. De Pelsemaeker & A. Deblaere - 1955 - Bijdragen 16 (1):91-116.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  37
    The Burden of Criticism: Consequences of Taking a Critical Stance.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):201-224.
    Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convincingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of “directiveness” that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  48.  27
    The Role of Argument in Negotiation.Jan Albert van Laar & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (4):549-567.
    The purpose of this paper is to show the pervasive, though often implicit, role of arguments in negotiation dialogue. This holds even for negotiations that start from a difference of interest such as mere bargaining through offers and counteroffers. But it certainly holds for negotiations that try to settle a difference of opinion on policy issues. It will be demonstrated how a series of offers and counteroffers in a negotiation dialogue contains a reconstructible series of implicit persuasion dialogues. The paper (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  49.  4
    Reply to David Godden’s commentary on “Splitting a difference of opinion”.van Laar Jan Albert & C. W. Krabbe Erik - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  50.  42
    Frans H. van Eemeren and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans: Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation: 2nd Edition, Routledge, New York and London, 2017, 174 pp.Sara Greco - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (1):151-153.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 1000